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: Pathalias, Genroutes, and topologies... Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 90 15:53:30 GMT Sender: Node Management Discussion Reply-To: Node Management Discussion Organization: Princeton University, CIT Network Systems Lines: 20 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 11 Feb 90 04:13:19 EST from On Sun, 11 Feb 90 04:13:19 EST Valdis Kletnieks said: >Will the main proponent of each new routing table generator please tell >me now the routings generated by their program will fit in with the >scheme used by Eric Thomas's LSVBITFD software? It seems to me that >if routing program X and LSVBITFD don't use the same scheme for deciding >'shortest', that we can get inconsistent results. Keep in mind that LISTSERV is simply an application within BITNET that happens to have knowledge about the underlying topology of the network. If LISTSERV makes decisions about LISTSERV traffic routing that are contrary to the physical network, then this is a LISTSERV application problem. Personally, I do not find this to be a concern, LISTSERV is doing a good job of co-relating its logical topology to the physical topology. You have the same problem with CHAT, NETNEWS feeds and various other services on the network. They all have their own view of the network and what they "believe" are the best places for these services. The topology of the network will change, and so these applications may have to change as well. /mrg