Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!utkcs2!cygnusx1!moore From: moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Rerouting considered GOOD Message-ID: <587@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> Date: 9 Oct 88 19:33:59 GMT References: <8809212215.AA21035@naggum.se> <2540@sultra.UUCP> <371@ditka.UUCP> <1988Sep27.105604.5152@ateng.ateng.com> <6@jove.dec.com> <12658@ncoast.UUCP> <2947@uoregon.uoregon.edu> Sender: news@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu Reply-To: moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) Organization: CS Dept -- University of TN, Knoxville Lines: 34 In article <2947@uoregon.uoregon.edu> dboyes@drizzle.UUCP (David Boyes) writes: >Having dealt with networks that are totally map-driven (BITNET, for >example), it *IS* possible to have reasonably* up-to-date maps, >PROVIDED someone takes the time and effort to do so. With BITNET, >where if you aren't in the routing tables, you CAN'T communicate, it's >a matter of necessity. The scheme developed is simple, and I think >someone already suggested it -- a base file and small update files >applied on a periodic basis, usually monthly. One of the reasons this works for BITNET is that each node only routes messages as far as the next node in the path. This means that a computer center with several machines can get away with rearranging its local network (to cope with broken machines, etc.) as long as its BITNET links with the outside world do not change. There's no inherent reason that the UUCP world could not be handled similarly, but it would require substantial changes in almost everyone's mailer, and more discipline as to how routing table updates were handled. What if the standard way of handling mail addressed to luser@foo.UUCP were - if 'foo' is your machine, deliver it locally, else - deliver the mail to luser@foo.UUCP in care of the next node in the path to 'foo', as determined by your local node's routing table. If that node were 'bar', then the command issued by your machine would be something like uux "bar!rmail luser@foo.UUCP !message" thus trusting each node to perform part of the routing rather than choosing the entire path at any point? [as I put on my ring of flame resistance...] Keith Moore UT Computer Science Dept. Internet/CSnet: moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus BITNET: moore@utkcs1 Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301 Telephone: +1 615 974 0822