From: Michael C Taylor <mctaylor@mta.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:11:46 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Routing around damage
In-Reply-To: <v03102802afecd9bc6add@[10.0.2.15]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970712185240.5646C-100000@fractal.mta.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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 <mctaylor@mta.ca> <http://www.mta.ca/~mctaylor/>