Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!PUCC!GETTES From: GETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l Subject: Re: BITNET Restructuring Proposal Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 90 16:26:30 GMT Sender: Node Management Discussion Reply-To: Node Management Discussion Organization: Princeton University, CIT Network Systems Lines: 25 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 11 Feb 90 17:22:26 EST from On Sun, 11 Feb 90 17:22:26 EST Roger Watt said: >Why does there need to be an NJE-over-IP "backbone of core nodes"? Why >don't those of us who are NJE-over-IP capable just go ahead and talk >NJE-over-IP to each other, trashing the native-NJE links as we no longer >need them? Why can't this NJE-over-IP thing evolve to the point where we >can move to domain addresses and have a WKS of "NJE" in the DNS? Because there are certain nodes within the center of the network that are dealing with a huge amount of traffic and devoting large amounts of computing and human resources to keeping the machines viable. Formally establishing a core of nodes will alleviate the burden from a few nodes and distribute the processing requirements. This proposal is not meant to be the solution to all problems of our network for short and long term consideration. I view it as the next step to keep things viable. Will it evolve into a WKS within DNS? I don't know. My personal feeling is that I do not believe so. But, at least now questions like this can be considered. View this as the second step in a long (possibly spiral) staircase for BITNET/CREN. I believe the establishment of a core is essential at this time and the sooner the better. /mrg Disclaimer: The usual...