[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Routing around damage
On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> >
> >> Remember "the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around
> >> it"? I'd be happy with an internet that interprets DAMAGE as damage and
> >> routes around it.
> >
> >It does.. It's just that when you lose a *large* access point, the impact
> >is significant. (I think that's what happened here...)
>
> Seems to me that having only a few, heavily trafficed, NAPs is a
> topological weakness in the Net which needs to be delt with soon.
What else do you expect from mass-market commericalization of Network
Providers? "The cheapest route."
AOL's growth spurt and pains should of been a foreshadow for anyone
in the business.
-M, who's network access is not redudent nor is my NAP balanced-redudent
(the backup route is 128K for NB last time I asked)
--
Michael C. Taylor <[email protected]> <http://www.mta.ca/~mctaylor/>