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