🚀 go-pugleaf

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