Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ucat!pesnta!altos86!altnet!edc From: edc@altnet.UUCP (Eric D. Christensen) Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: I hate smail Message-ID: <272@.altnet.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Jan-87 23:53:24 EST Article-I.D.: .272 Posted: Fri Jan 9 23:53:24 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Jan-87 22:46:07 EST References: <14227@amdcad.UUCP> <32@auspyr.UUCP> <4070@nsc.NSC.COM> Reply-To: edc@altnet.UUCP (Eric D. Christensen) Organization: Altos Customer Support, San Jose, Calif. Lines: 57 In article <4070@nsc.NSC.COM> tron@nsc.UUCP (Ronald S. Karr) writes: > >I believe that a somewhat standard system of cost figuring that took >into account poll rate, line cost, line capacity, system reliability >and size, and (possibly) distance, would, if adopted by enough system >administrators, yield a much more reliable path database. > >Another parallel possibility here is to give a cost to a host that >indicates a _through_ cost, which would raise the cost for routing >_through_ a site as opposed to routing _to_ a site. I too believe that with the growth of the net a more effective cost scheme should probably be considered. The current system is so arbitrary that mail often jumps all over the place using "cheap" routes, which results in certain hub system (i.e. ihnp4) to be overloaded. The end result is cheap, but slow mail and a lot of frustration for all. By the way (minor flame here), how come everybody and their dog claims to have a DEMAND or DIRECT connection to ihnp4? Is it any wonder poor ihnp4 is totaly buried in mail? Perhaps some sort of binary ored cost mechanism would be a more effiecent system. This has the advantage that few changes would need to be made to pathalias to invoke it. Something like the following could be considered: 1 Dedicated Line 2 Direct (Demand) Connect 4 Polled System 10 LAN 20 High Speed (>9600 baud) 40 Low Speed (<9600 baud) 100 Local System (<100 miles) 200 Short [sic] Haul (<1000 miles) 400 Long Haul (>1000 miles) One advantage to a system like this is that it can take geographical proximity into account. It could also be much less arbitrary as far as the cost value associated with a particular link. Of course the system administrators would have to stay honest for this to work. Obviously this is only an idea to kick around. Please, no nasty abuse about me posting a half baked idea... I'm making this up as I go along. It's only meant to be food for thought. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject. Don't mail them to me though, post them so we can get some global feedback. Besides, I am NOT volunteering to rewrite pathalias or anything. There are lots of people out there who are much better qualified than I to take on an evdevor such as this. Cheers- -- Eric D. Christensen UUCP: ihnp4!sun!altos86!altnet!edc AT&T: (408) 433-3614 Altos Computer Systems Snail Mail: 399 West Trimble Road Customer Support Division San Jose, Calif. 95131 USA