Xref: utzoo news.misc:1134 news.config:424
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!pyramid!necntc!husc6!bbn!oberon!cit-vax!mangler
From: mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck)
Newsgroups: news.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: The USENET Backbone (Last changed: 10 December 1987)
Summary: minimum feed requirement destructive
Message-ID: <5202@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: 16 Jan 88 10:29:18 GMT
References: <2802@arthur.cs.purdue.edu> <14191@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <19508@clyde.ATT.COM>
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 25

In article <19508@clyde.ATT.COM>, rcj@moss.ATT.COM writes:
> I'd be willing to make it a rule that if a given site:
>
>	a) is not a leaf node,
>	b) exchanges "all" news (i.e., everything but alt) with
>	   at least some N (?2?  ?3?) sites, none of whom is a leaf node
>
> that site should be considered a backbone site and be offered a slot on
> the backbone mailing list and all those other secret black ritualistic

When the NNTP-managers mailing list was started, a similar membership
rule was put forward, with N=3.  The purpose of the NNTP-managers list
is to promote efficient news distribution, and on the Internet this
means that news should be exchanged only between sites on adjacent
packet-switch nodes, so that news never traverses a cable twice.

But many of the packet-switch nodes have fewer than 3 trunks connecting
them to other packet switch nodes, and not all of those neighbors will
be running NNTP.  So for most of us, we can either have a voice on the
list, or we can live up to its goals, but we can't do both.

I think backbone sites should be judged by the quality of their service,
not the quantity of their feeds.

Don Speck   speck@vlsi.caltech.edu  {amdahl,ames!elroy}!cit-vax!speck