Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliveb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!jerry
From: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Reposting lost articles
Message-ID: <502@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 19:28:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.502
Posted: Mon Jul 15 19:28:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 06:45:02 EDT
References: <1261@peora.UUCP> <9046@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 46

It has been suggested that, when a site doesn't receive an article and
later requests it by mail, it then reinsert the article into the news
system so other sites will receive it.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to just add a few more news
connections to the net.  The problem seems to be the number of sites
which are only connected by a single path.  If any site on that path
garbles the article then it never makes it.  If there were an alternate
path then the article would slip in the back door and propagate to
sites "downstream" from the site that garbled the article,
automatically and with a correct return path.

With a few exceptions the net has a star topology with all the delays
and unreliability associated with such a topology.  Star network
proponents please take note that the news software does not take
advantage of any of the advantages available with that topology.
Instead we have the worst of both worlds, lost articles, two week
transmission delays, and twenty site reply paths.  This was discussed
about two years ago in a series of articles titled "sub optimal
topology" but nothing came of it.

This lack of connectivity is affecting not only the reliability and
speed of the network but also its politics.  Lets face it, the network
is really controlled by only a few sites.  I do not imply that these
sites are abusing their position but they still control the net in the
sense that they could destroy it.  In most cases removing just one site
from the net would isolate that section from the rest of the country.
A star topology implies a central administration, something the net
claims not to have!

Would all the discussion about some sites dropping net.flame have
occurred if sites could reasonably expect to receive that group by an
alternate path?  Most sites are hanging out there as a "leaf" totally
dependent on the local "backbone" site.

There have been few efforts to fight this trend.  The count
modification to the local flag made by bytebug@pertec.UUCP (roger long)
is a great step towards allowing more efficient cross feeding of
articles between sites.  How many sites use it?

At least half the problems of the net seem solvable by greater
interconnection.  Trying to patch them here and there is doing it the
hard way.

				Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC
{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry