Text 2076, 92 rader
Skriven 2004-07-15 20:27:25 av Michael Grant (1:134/11)
   Kommentar till text 2066 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
Ärende: Testing for -Unpublished-
=================================
Hello Peter.

15 Jul 04 20:44, you wrote to me:

 PK>> Try as I can, I just can't fathom that one... The nodelist is there
 PK>> primarily to list PSTN nodes, so how a PSTN only
 PK>> host is bad seems to be stretching things a bit (IMHO).

 MG>> The nodelist is there for all nodes. All nodes use it equally,

 PK> So you are then satisfied by how IP nodes are currently handled by the
 PK> Nodelist?

No, I am not. ION's technically can enjoy the same level of routing automation
that PSTN nodes can, yet are being denied the ability to do so because of a
predesposition to place PSTN needs above ION needs. That predisposition is
being forcefully imposed upon this network by a number of it's coordinators.

 MG>> and all nodes have the right to have their concerns dealt with equally.
 MG>> Yes, but Host routing is already broken for some nodes
 MG>> in this network.

 PK> How so, that seems to me to be a potentially fatal mistake, especially at
 PK> the current state of play.

Host routing is broken for ION's. An ION attempting to reach a Pvt node with a
PSTN-only Host will be unable to host route the message.

 MG>> ION's cannot automate Host routing to POTS only nodes.

 PK> My thinking says -
 PK>   1. If the node is not contactable, Host route it.
 PK>   2. If that Host is not contactable, then Zonegate Route it.

Zonegate routing doesn't automate by default like Host routing does. ION's
can't host route to PSTN-only Hosts. If ION's are denied the ability to host
route, then why should PSTN nodes be considered to have some god-given right to
expect all PSTN host routing automation to always work? You are creating a
class system amongst the nodes by treating one group better than another group.
There never should be differing "classes" of nodes in this network, because all
nodes are equal. The only way to even the situation out is to allow ION Hosts.
Then both POTS and ION's will face similar situations: Some host routing will
work, but some will not.

Perhaps it's the fact that we haven't gotten the network to this point yet that
real solutions for default ION<=>POTS bridge routing haven't been implemented
in this network. Perhaps if we /do/ level the playing field, there will be more
impetus to actually implement a default bridge routing system that works.

 PK> As long as Zonegating still works, we should be ok.

There's some question as to how well that works, also...

 PK>> I dont think people are looking at non PSTN nodes
 PK>> in a badlight at all,

 MG>> When you show preference for PSTN to the detriment of
 MG>> ION's, then you certainly are looking at non-PSTN nodes in a bad light.

 PK> A huge proportion of Fidonet uses IP now, how can that be a sign of a
 PK> preference for PSTN? What I think you mean is that Fidonet Nodelist
 PK> practise (EG in the entries allowed for listing IP nodes), tends to show
 PK> a preference for PSTN use. Its that part that needs changing... and is
 PK> being discussed as we type...

ION's are being held back technically in regard to how a mailer can act on the
nodelist and automate contact with other nodes. The same sorts of automations
that PSTN nodes have always enjoyed very much can and should be available for
ION's to use equally to all other nodes. They have been forced to ignore the
valid definitions of nodelist flags as described in FTS documentation, have
been denied the ability to Host route netmail, and have been denied the right
to list without the Pvt flag when their system is not private. The only way for
them to enjoy the same levels of automation that PSTN nodes have always enjoyed
is to remove these unfair technical barriers that this network's coordinators
have imposed upon them.

 MG>> The impact of showing a preference for POTS concerns over ION concerns
 MG>> has been detrimental on a large scale to this network
 MG>> for a long time now, and that situation is not only
 MG>> holding back the growth of the network, but has driven
 MG>> nodes away from this network in frustration.

 PK> I think we have a groundswell of people wishing to change that thinking,
 PK> so hopefuly it will not last too much longer...

I certainly hope so. I am getting tired of saying goodbye to potential new
nodes who at first showed so much interest and enthusiasm, just to wind up
frustrated and vowing to never look at FTN networking again.


--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1
 * Origin: MikE'S MaDHousE: WelComE To ThE AsYluM! (1:134/11)