Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Mail addressing and routing Message-ID: <5866@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Aug-85 21:58:06 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.5866 Posted: Sat Aug 10 21:58:06 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 21:58:06 EDT References: <644@adobe.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 16 > ... If they were broken down, say, by STATE NAME, then > it would be reasonable for each computer to maintain a table of all 50 > states and where to deliver mail that it receives with that State name > in it. ... This sort of idea has come up before. The problem is that geography in general, and state boundaries in particular, has little to do with good routing. The classic case, which I *think* has now been cleared up, is that for a long time there were two disjoint sets of machines in Colorado, with no in-state links between them. Geography does show some correlation with routing, mostly because long-distance charges are tied to geography, but arbitrary groupings are hard to avoid if you want a solid basis for routing decisions. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry