Text 2078, 57 rader
Skriven 2004-07-18 08:39:30 av Michael Grant (1:134/11)
   Kommentar till text 2077 av Scott Little (3:712/848)
Ärende: Testing for -Unpublished-
=================================
Hello Scott.

16 Jul 04 17:48, you wrote to me:

 MG>> automation that PSTN nodes can, yet are being denied the ability to do
 MG>> so because of a predesposition to place PSTN needs above ION needs.

 SL> PSTN don't have the luxury of essentially free communication with any
 SL> other node on the planet.

So? That's the burden they place upon /themselves/ when they decide to use PSTN
to communicate in this network. It's their responsibility and theirs alone. I
run a PSTN-only node here, and I accept the burden of the cost. If I did not, I
would take my PSTN mailer down.

This is the reason why you will find that /every/ PSTN mailer will include a
costing scheme to prevent unwanted dialing. This is the same reason you will
find them capable of preventing dialing when HOLD flavoured packets are
encountered.

And internet connections are *not* "free".

 SL>  It's only right they be given preference where there is conflict.

Cost concerns are the individual's to deal with. They are not anyone else's
concerns. They do not in any way provide justification to deny other nodes
technical equality in this network.

 SL> It's the whole fucking point of having nets to begin with.

My aren't we getting upset. We have kept nets together here in Z1, even when
they are mostly ION. The reason is that there are other reasons that Nets exist
other than for PSTN technical concerns. The nodes may have local common
interests, which can increase echomail traffic in local echos. The *C can make
a local phone call to a node when they're having trouble, or even visit the
node's home to assist in configuration issues.

Fidonet is not solely phone lines and modems and mailers acting on them.
Fidonet is also a social entity, and it uses a wide variety of differing
protocals and connection methods. It's time to recognize those facts, instead
of continuing to insist on looking at it only from a PSTN technical point of
view.

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

 SL> An ION can route through any other IP capable /0 he likes, at ZERO extra
 SL> cost.

And is he guaranteed by policy that that other /0 he contacts will route to the
/0 and therefore on to the node that he is actually trying to reach?

Policy only makes a guarantee that a Host will route to his /own/ nodes. Host
routiong is therefore broken in most cases for ION's.

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