Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:850 comp.mail.misc:698 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ncr-sd!matt From: matt@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Matt Costello) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: How not to list a network gateway in the maps Summary: Use private map files Keywords: pathalias USENET super bitnet Message-ID: <1948@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> Date: 15 Dec 87 03:26:18 GMT References: <165@fesk.UUCP> <567@egg-id.UUCP> Reply-To: matt@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Matt Costello) Followup-To: comp.mail.misc Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo Lines: 26 In article <567@egg-id.UUCP> nsadmin@egg-id.UUCP (Linn Hower) writes: > 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. The definition of gateways should almost always use the default pathalias cost of 4000. Even though a gateway is defined as a link (to pathalias) its real cost is always 0 because that machine IS the gateway. While the published maps stick to the default cost for domain gateways I'll be able to locally override these costs for specific cases. Right now, for example, relay.cs.net is listed within NCR as a gateway to bitnet with a cost of 95; This was done to override super's incorrect map entry. Our gateway to .MIL is a nearby machine actually on the MILNET. Please people, don't put everything out into the USENET map files. These files are supposed to be getting smaller as domain mailers become more common. I've got systems that are sometimes unable to use the full USENET database because the user process size limit is only 1 MB. -- Matt Costello+1 619 485 2926 {sdcsvax,cbosgd,pyramid,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!matt