Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!sri-spam!parcvax!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!sdcsvax!jack!man!wolf!billw From: billw@wolf.UUCP (Bill Wisner) Newsgroups: net.news.adm Subject: Re: A proposal to distribute costs Message-ID: <170@wolf.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Aug-86 21:31:03 EDT Article-I.D.: wolf.170 Posted: Thu Aug 14 21:31:03 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 17-Aug-86 05:45:19 EDT References: <-127674843@sysvis> Organization: The Society for the Preservation of Big Black Monoliths Lines: 90 > 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?