Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:848 comp.mail.misc:689
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!ucdavis!egg-id!nsadmin
From: nsadmin@egg-id.UUCP (Linn Hower)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: How not to list a network gateway in the maps
Message-ID: <567@egg-id.UUCP>
Date: 13 Dec 87 00:31:48 GMT
References: <165@fesk.UUCP>
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL)
Lines: 31

> A little
> studying of the map files revealed the reason:  Super  gives
> the  cost  of  the bitnet link as DIRECT whereas psuvax does
> not give a cost.  No cost  is  equivalent  to  4000,  rather
> higher  than the DIRECT cost of 200, and certainly more than


> In conclusion:  (1) Don't list a gateway unless  you  run  a
> true,  honest  to god gateway.  And (2), if you list a gate-
> way, don't associate a  cost  with  the  gateway.   (Perhaps
> pathalias should be modified to ignore gateway costs).
> 
> 				Sverre
> -- 
> Sverre Froyen

  I also had bitnet mail bounce and tracked down this same problem.
However I don't agree with the above conclusion.  If I am providing
a gateway service on a single computation node, its `cost' is very
low, approaching zero depending on my cpu horsepower.  Why don't
we use pathalias's input for what its designed for?  Why have a special
case for gateways?  I feel the input from the d.Top file should reflect
the true cost of gatewaying.

  ( I am not arguing the error in super's entry.  Its pretty screwed up.)

--
  Linn
-- 
Linn Hower	usenet@INEL.GOV		Phone: 208-526-9353
		usenet%INEL.GOV@uiucuxc.ARPA