ROBINSON@BITNIC.BITNET (Andrew T. Robinson) (02/12/90)
Valdis, You miss the point. LISTSERV tries to implement routing on top of routing. Ideally, a LISTSERV-type server would run at every site, eliminating the need for "smart" routing within the LISTSERV "network." The servers could take advantage of the local node's routing tables to perform distributions, knowing only adjacencies and how nodes are routed through the adjacencies (I assume here that the BITNET table generation method is effective enough so the server does not need to second-guess routing descisions). As it stands now, LISTSERV compensates for its lack of portability by producing what amount to its own routing tables: It determines the topologically "closest" LISTSERV server for distribution purposes. This can lead to conflicts if an alternate routing generator is used for BITNET routes as opposed to LISTSERV routes--a point you raised in an earlier posting. In addition, it introduces an extra level of overhead and programming complexity to LISTSERV which have little to do with its intended role. The idea that BITNET routing descisions should be tied to LISTSERV is very bothersome to me--kind of a tail-wagging-the-dog situation. Andy
VALDIS@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Valdis Kletnieks) (02/12/90)
On Sun, 11 Feb 90 23:24:34 EST Andrew T. Robinson said: >Valdis, > >The idea that BITNET routing descisions should be tied to LISTSERV is >very bothersome to me--kind of a tail-wagging-the-dog situation. > >Andy Andy: I agree with what you said here. Unfortunately, Listserv is 30,000 lines of code. And there are (for political reasons) already two versions. It *is* the tail wagging the dog - but can we implement new schemes without being DAMN sure that we don't totally screw up one of the most sucessful services on Bitnet? If you need convincing, just look at the debacle we had a while ago when all the core Listserv traffic got dumped on ORION. That incident is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm worried will happen again unless we get Eric and Turgut to cooperate in this changeover. And then we'll have to make sure the various sites INSTALL it, etc etc etc... It almost makes me wish for the days when Bitnet was only 400 nodes. Amazing what 5 years of changes will bring... Valdis