notes@sysvis.UUCP (08/01/86)
Just to get productive discussion going here... What do you think of the idea of setting up one USENET "master site" per telephone area code? This would allow DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY in getting USENET traffic organized within each sector. New sites might query the master site for locating feeds. Area code mod.maps would be kept and updated by master sites for their own areas. Master sites in each area code would maintain contact with surrounding area code master sites in order to determine the best (most cost effective) LOCAL methods of getting notes/news exchanged (see map on last page). It would be incumbent on master sites to STORE a FULL SET of news/notes files. Sub-sites in each area code would dial surrounding area code master sites to get sub-sets of current traffic, thus significantly lowering the phone bill of the master. This method of distributed responsibility (and cost) might be more comfortable for most sites, master or not. If anyone has any valid public comment on this idea, please ADD to the discussion (flame > /dev/null). I really want to see if USENET can sustain a productive discussion--pertinent to one current issue. BTW -- CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of an idea is NOT a flame, it ADDS to discussion. It really does no good to reply to me by e-mail (you are welcome to do so) since this sort of idea must have more than majority support among active USENET sites. To shorten some propogation times across the net, it might be reasonable to maintain "Time Zone Master sites." These sites should be able to shift traffic across country in a fairly rapid, and smooth, manner. Planning alternate and backup sites is done by the master sites, working it out in their own areas. Several area code sites should dial out of an area code, each picking up a different subdivision of the total material (and gain- ing some parallelism). As soon as new data is gotten into an area code, its dissemination to other sites could be started immediately, via local calls, the master site being the first updated. I realize that the material in this posting is only a basis for discussion. It is not meant to be a completed formal plan. That's how I would like to see it all end, with a formal, acceptable to all, plan. Are there be objections to organized decentralization of responsibility and cost? I don't see how. A proposal map is on the next page to show how this all might be worked out. | Area Code "A" | Area Code "B" | | | | | / Site 1 | | | These sites dial / Site 2 | | | Master site B for | 3 ----|---------> Master Site B | | notes/news feeds \ 4 | / | | (each gets 1/n total) \ 5 | / | | (thus sharing costs ) \ . | / all sites local | | (ALL then update MS.) / \ n | / into Master site | | / | Site 1 \ | | / | Site 2 \ These sites dial | | Master Site A <------------|---- 3 | Master Site A for | | | 4 / news/notes feeds | | | 5 / (each gets 1/n total)| | (Dissemination is local | . (thus sharing costs )| | from both master sites) | n (ALL then update MS.)| | | | ...!ihnp4!sysvis!sys1!george
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/13/86)
One serious problem with trying to group master sites by area code is that internal corporate network links -- often a cheap, fast way to send news -- don't follow that structure.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/13/86)
> ... What do you think of the idea > of setting up one USENET "master site" per telephone area code? This would > allow DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY in getting USENET traffic organized within > each sector... This is the way a lot of the backbone sites currently operate, in fact. The proposal does have some interesting extra wrinkles. The biggest problem I can see is the obvious: it requires lots more volunteers for both the mater sites and the sub-master sites that are intended to do most of the news shipping. Volunteers, especially volunteers for long-distance bills, are not in abundant supply. As a more minor quibble, your map seems to assume that calls within an area code are local. Not so in general. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/14/86)
In article <-127674843@sysvis>, notes@sysvis.UUCP writes: > > Just to get productive discussion going here... What do you think of the idea > of setting up one USENET "master site" per telephone area code? I don't know where you live, but around here it is more expensive to make long distance calls within the LATA than it is to the neighboring LATAs. -Ron
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/14/86)
In article <-127674843@sysvis> sys1!george writes: > > Master sites in each area code would maintain contact with surrounding area > code master sites in order to determine the best (most cost effective) LOCAL > methods of getting notes/news exchanged Amid rather a lot of misconception, George has hit upon (or at least, skirted past) one good point. As an example, take the metropolitan New York area. We've got two USENET backbone sites, cmcl2 in the 212 area (Manhatten) and philabs in 914 (Westchester). Much to my surprise, there are sites right here in Manhatten that call philabs to get news. Why? I'm not sure, but the lack of any centralized news feed registry is surely a contributing factor. On the other hand, it takes time and effort (read: money) to run such a registry; perhaps it is a worthwhile project for Usenix to take on. I'm not talking about just coordinating the USENET map project (although that is indeed a very important thing), but some place that would keep track of who has feeds available. When somebody needs a news feed, they could call up this place and get a referral. Presumably this place would also be in charge of applying mild presure to new sites to make a good estimate of how many sites thay can in turn feed, and sign up (kind of like doctors asking next-of-kin to donate organs for transplants -- not required, but suggested). Actually, as I understand it, stargate will provide much the type of service George is talking about. A few big sites in each area would get their news via a cable feed (or right off the bird). They would then distribute the articles via local phone calls to the other sites in the area, much like the backbone sites do now. Area codes, BTW, may not be the best way to divide the net into "local calling areas". Corporations (and Universities) may have private intra-organizational links that cross area code boundaries. For example, we used to get news from timeinc (Time-Life's publishing technology group in Manhatten). Since office space is so expensive in Manhatten, Time actually had their machine room in New Jersey and had a leased line accross the Hudson River; this gave them local calling in both 201 and 212. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
billw@wolf.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (08/15/86)
> Just to get productive discussion going here... What do you think of the idea > of setting up one USENET "master site" per telephone area code? This would > allow DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY in getting USENET traffic organized within > each sector. New sites might query the master site for locating feeds. Area > code mod.maps would be kept and updated by master sites for their own areas. Good idea. Some area codes span full states, but those are usually the states with lower populaton; and fewer UUCP sites. > Master sites in each area code would maintain contact with surrounding area > code master sites in order to determine the best (most cost effective) LOCAL > methods of getting notes/news exchanged (see map on last page). It would be > incumbent on master sites to STORE a FULL SET of news/notes files. Sub-sites > in each area code would dial surrounding area code master sites to get subsets > of current traffic, thus significantly lowering the phone bill of the master. Sure, the local "subsites" would be the ones polling the master site. The master site would be running up the bills anyway, calling the other master sites. But this much is obvious. > This method of distributed responsibility (and cost) might be more comfortable > for most sites, master or not. If anyone has any valid public comment on this > idea, please ADD to the discussion (flame > /dev/null). I really want to see > if USENET can sustain a productive discussion--pertinent to one current issue. > BTW: CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of an idea is NOT a flame, it ADDS to discussion. There would be a DEFINITE need to have an authoritative administrator for each region (let's call them regions) who would be THE contact person for that area. When things like the current reorganization occur, this administrator will make sure that all sites in his region carry through. And each master site (replacement for the current backbones?) had better keep copies of all the news sources -- the various bnews software, readnews, vnews, rn, notes, et al. > It really does no good to reply to me by e-mail (you are welcome to do so) > since this sort of idea must have more than majority support among active > USENET sites. To shorten some propogation times across the net, it might > be reasonable to maintain "Time Zone Master sites." These sites should be > able to shift traffic across country in a fairly rapid, and smooth, manner. Doing this would also contribute greatly to the idea of having a central USENET authority. I seem to remembr a prior article in this newsgroup concerning the censoring of copyrighted materials. I'm not much for censorship, but that idea is a valid one if we want USENET to continue to survive, and this structure would contribute to the screening of copyrighted materials. > Planning alternate and backup sites is done by the master sites, working it > out in their own areas. Several area code sites should dial out of an area > code, each picking up a different subdivision of the total material (and gain- > ing some parallelism). As soon as new data is gotten into an area code, its > dissemination to other sites could be started immediately, via local calls, > the master site being the first updated. > I realize that the material in this posting is only a basis for discussion. It > is not meant to be a completed formal plan. That's how I would like to see it > all end, with a formal, acceptable to all, plan. Are there be objections to > organized decentralization of responsibility and cost? I don't see how. A > proposal map is on the next page to show how this all might be worked out. > | Area Code "A" | Area Code "B" | > | | | > | / Site 1 | | > | These sites dial / Site 2 | | > | Master site B for | 3 ----|---------> Master Site B | > | notes/news feeds \ 4 | / | > | (each gets 1/n total) \ 5 | / | > | (thus sharing costs ) \ . | / all sites local | > | (ALL then update MS.) / \ n | / into Master site | > | / | Site 1 \ | > | / | Site 2 \ These sites dial | > | Master Site A <------------|---- 3 | Master Site A for | > | | 4 / news/notes feeds | > | | 5 / (each gets 1/n total)| > | (Dissemination is local | . (thus sharing costs )| > | from both master sites) | n (ALL then update MS.)| > | | | This makes me wonder, though, about areas such as Idaho. There are seven UUCP sites in the state, and ALL are at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Not a real big need there for a central power, since all have the same SA. I have to dial out-of-state to read the net. I may be putting up an SCO Xenix site soon; which raises serious questions (to me) about the entire idea of this. Would the entire Idaho region just be incorporated into Oregon, or Nevada? -- Bill Wisner / The Society for the Preservation of Big Black Monoliths ..{hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd, decvax!ittatc!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!jack!man!wolf!bdw Steven Spielberg: If you owned the universe, where would you put it?
sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (08/16/86)
In article <-127674843@sysvis> george@sys1 writes: > >Just to get productive discussion going here... What do you think of the idea >of setting up one USENET "master site" per telephone area code? This would >allow DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY in getting USENET traffic organized within >each sector. New sites might query the master site for locating feeds. Area >code mod.maps would be kept and updated by master sites for their own areas. >... You're assuming that sites in geographic proximity are connected to each other. This is not true due to differing networks, transmission methods, system loads, and administrative/personal reasons. I think one of the MN area codes sends most or all its mail/news through a different MN area code. Then there's North Dakota, which can only be accessed through Minnesota sites (Huh? You have to go through area code X to reach area code Y?). A "master site" is a good idea, but runs into similar problems as the "geographic domain" idea. You must particularly remember the cheap communications within entities (corporations, agencies, projects, LATAs, states, countries) which tend to have gateways where they are cheapest or most beneficial. [Hmm, maybe this is why X.400 uses "companies" as major address components?] USENET is a cooperative meta-network with many odd-looking links which are very logical to the two site administrators involved. ("Logic" includes "that's the policy") Personally, I think we need some distributed database technology to manage net maps and news/source archive sites. (Anyone with applicable dist-DB knowledge want to compare wild ideas?) -- Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn Ed Comp Corp {quest,dicome,meccts}!mecc!sewilco 45 03 N 93 08 W (612)481-3507 {{caip!meccts},ihnp4,philabs}!mecc!sewilco Laws are society's common sense, recorded for the stupid. The alert question everything anyway.
dave@dlb.UUCP (Dave Buck) (08/25/86)
While talk is ongoing regarding distribution of costs, I'd like to suggest we take a small prior step, a variation on the original proposal: break up the maps into regions of size amenable to allowing sites to become aware of others in the surrounding area and possibly cutting costs and insane distribution paths. The original idea, I believe, was breaking out area codes (u.usa.408 and u.usa.415 for Silicon Valley areas, etc), but there may be toll charges within areas, so another idea would be by postal code (first 3 digits of site's zip or postal code, ours would be u.usa.951) ... I suspect this may be more useful, as it is usually a much smaller geographic distribution, and adjacent geographic areas are often close in code sequence. Either way, Californians would instantly know what zone they were in ... with recent map changes, I no longer understand the boundaries! Once a site was able to easily determine the set of neighboring sites, the sites could all meet informally to discuss costs if they wish. Suggesting a scheme for cost distribution for everyone isn't likely to move quickly for many reasons already stated. -- Dave Buck ihnp4!amdahl!dlb!dave (408)972-2825 D.L.Buck&Assoc.,Inc. 6920 Santa Teresa Blvd. San Jose, Calif.95119
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/26/86)
-- [ There was a description of partioning the USENET by zip codes to decrease phone charges] That simplistic partitioning still won't work. I don't think it would be easier to come up with some simplistic domaining that is going to minimize phone costs. Even leaving out the fact that certain people have access to lower rate long distance trunks, foreign exchange lines, etc...your scenario is not going to even work just given a regularly normal phone system. Zip code numbers only follow vague geographic plans in their allocation (the leading three digits only really apply to major cities). Phone tolls get wierd at state and LATA boundries. I'm not saying that reorginization won't reduce charges, but its going to involve negotiation between the sites as to what the charges are rather than the simplistic solutions proposed. -Ron