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