On Tue, 19 Sep 89 17:59:13 GMT Eric Thomas said: > However, the introduction of this new line caused LISTSERV >distribute jobs to take completely "absurd" paths, because I had not been >warned about this and had therefore not made the appropriate change to the >link weights file; LISTSERV, which has no way to know that this is a virtual >SNA route, had assumed the default weight of "1" and routed a huge amount of >traffic through that line. ..... >I am hereby repeating, for the last time, my request to have changes to the >international EARN topology announced a reasonable amount of time in advance. >I am fed up with having to find out this kind of things after the fact, when I >get complaints from understandably unhappy people. ..... Eric, you've complained for as long as I can remember that you simply have no way to fully understand the topology of the network, particularly keeping up with all of the changes like the one you describe above. Yet, you are the only person capable of generating the LINKSWT files? Is this not the time to consider letting someone at BITNIC (Side point: I presume that you're only generating this file for non-EARN sites, right? And that Turgut is doing it for the EARN sites? That's why I'm suggesting BITNIC here.) take over the generation and maintenance of the LINKSWT file. It would seem that since they're aware of the changes in the topology faster than most people, since they're getting the data together for the rest of the network definition tables we use, that they would be a reasonable place to handle this chore. Also, given they have a more network-wide viewpoint, they may have a better understanding of the topology than one person. This is not a flame against you, Eric. I'm merely trying to suggest an appropriate person to take over something you've called onerous in the past. Richard