nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:44:33 +0800
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004, Michael.Dillon () radianz com wrote:
Not everyone wants to (or is able to) entrust their email to a a Tier 1 ISP; if nothing else, the Tier 1s would charge for the privilege.A tier 1 provider in the SMTP mesh does not have to be the same thing as a tier 1 provider in the physical mesh. See the structure of the NNTP mesh over the years for examples. I fully expect to see specialized email peering providers arise who will have SMTP peering arrangements with the large email site like AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail etc. and who then arrange peering with large numbers of smaller sites who either cannot find SMTP peering locally or who want to be assured of alternate SMTP routes in the event their main peer cannot reach all destinations.
.. and then I pay my upstream for the privilege of them sending my mail along for me? All of that equipment so a bunch of universities can feed their upstream a whole chunk of email reliably isn't exactly going to be cheap. These specialised email providers are going to have to have _some_ form of transit to handle 'just email', increasing the cost. I wonder how many backbone providers want to run their own email gateways for all email passing through their network and have to provide some form of guaranteed service to their customers. I wonder how this is going to affect SMTP mail handling as it stands - for example, how many 'hops' will there be between this university's mail gateway and, say, MIT's mail gateway(s)? Will people start playing header rewrite tricks so MTAs around the world don't bomb out with "exceeded hop count" ? "Just one hop!" games, a la IP routing in the final stages of last century, may rear its ugly head again. I don't believe comparing this to NNTP is entirely valid - you don't have the overhead of multiple crazy NNTP server implementations causing you the utmost of pain; you don't have to worry about handling bounces and temporary DNS failures along each path; article routing (whether you chose push or pull) was much, much simpler. Adrian -- Adrian Chadd I'm only a fanboy if <adrian () creative net au> I emailed Wesley Crusher.
Current thread:
- Re: Routing issues, (continued)
- Re: Routing issues Nick Feamster (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Eric Brunner-Williams (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Eric Brunner-Williams (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Rob Nelson (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Michael . Dillon (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Adrian Chadd (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Andrew - Supernews (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators JC Dill (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 14)