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/>