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