mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson) (12/23/90)
In article <1990Dec19.150853.10463@sceard.Sceard.COM> mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes: >This brings up what I think is likely to become a Real Problem. Check the UUCP >maps. See how often uunet is in a path. They become a real limiting resource >as a transport path. They caused, through their excellent service, a network >that was distributed to become heirarchical. That is, to send to a site across >town, the message first goes through Virginia. This creates a burden >that is We had this problem in Ottawa for quite awhile. My first trick was to remove uunet from the maps completely and add a 'uunet .UUCP(LOCAL)' entry locally. Crude, but it worked. I then got into defining UUNET as dead. Finally, I got more sophisicated and just DEAD'ed the relevant route. I now smart-host to Carleton.ca, and don't worry about it. The problem site was mitel, and points west of them. (Basically across 'town' if you consider 'town' to be local calling distance) The problem was that uunet seemed (at that time. I don't have the u.usa.va.2 map file here and haven't looked at it for awhile) to have every single one of their connections as 'DEMAND' or 'DIRECT' (a couple of connections across town were listed as 'DAILY' because that was how often they connected). This seemed to be so that mail would be routed through uunet. This seems wrong: uunet If the clients want the mail routed through uunet, get uunet to MX for them and have uunet as the gateway machine (for the UUCP Zone). Another solution that may work is to have uunet declare their connections as 'terminal' (<site> notation). I think they may in fact do that now. >might be getting close to time to regionalize uunet. What I mean by >this is I understand that this was original idea... >Is it already this way internally in .uu.net? Does anyone care? "If everyone had an MX record" ... Likely there would also be municipal 'uunet's that would pop up for those that want to pay for reliable mail and news service. (That is the one of the main reason I've heard for connecting to uunet. That one and the 'no one else will feed my 486 running MS-DOS') -- :!mcr!: | The postmaster never | - Pay attention only Michael Richardson | resolves twice. | to _MY_ opinions. - HOME: mcr@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca + If that doesn't work, try: WORK: michael@fts.ocunix.on.ca + fts1!michael, mcr@doe.carleton.ca
ahby@bungia.Bungia.MN.ORG (Shane P. McCarron) (12/25/90)
In article <1990Dec22.233450.7325@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca> mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson) writes: > "If everyone had an MX record" ... Likely there would also be >municipal 'uunet's that would pop up for those that want to pay for >reliable mail and news service. (That is the one of the main reason >I've heard for connecting to uunet. That one and the 'no one else will >feed my 486 running MS-DOS') We actually did that here in Minnesota several years ago. We created separate hubs for news and mail so that there would be a backup in case of catastrophic crash. We then set up a hierarchic tiered system where second teir sites were required to have trailblazers, and were requred to feed a number of third tier sites. We set up back up feeds along the second tier of sites and an ihave/sendme from a separate source into one of them. It worked pretty well for a while. The system is still mostly in place, although the adminsitration has changed hands more than once. The problem with a setup like this is that you really do need to change for it if you are going to provide it as a real service. We do, for instance, now change for access to the primary e-mail link locally. This is accomplished through an annual fee of something likee $35 of $50 to cover phone line and hardward maintenance costs. Fortunately, e-mail seems to be fairly low maintenance. The news links ahve traditionally been higher maintenance. Currently the Minnesota news system does not charge for access, and still operates much as described above. I would encourage other regions to set up systems like this one. It has eased access into the internet to the point where mn.org has 80 member sites. When we started, there were only 15 sites in minnesota. If you need more information, feel free to contact me. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 612-224-9239 Project Manager Internet: ahby@bungia.mn.org