Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!micor!latour!mcr From: mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson) Subject: Uunet clog (was Re: CompuServe backlog; mail servers (LONG) Message-ID: <1990Dec22.233450.7325@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca> Summary: Get them to change their default map weights. Organization: Sandelman Software Works, Debugging Department, Ottawa, ON References: <1990Dec13.235726.563@jpradley.jpr.com> <1990Dec19.150853.10463@sceard.Sceard.COM> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 23:34:50 GMT 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' ( 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