From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <017201c33bf0$3af91ca0$d2944251@insultant.net>
From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <20030626035341.15964.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu> <010801c33bd3$cc87dca0$d2944251@insultant.net> <3EFAF25C.6030203@proweb.co.uk> <015601c33be7$8b8773a0$d2944251@insultant.net> <3EFB01C7.8090603@proweb.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [9fans] mail problems..
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:35:46 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: de0b08d0-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> an email address is a handle used to retrieve a list of local caches
> from the MX records
>
> but you know all this.

yes, i do.

> Your original argument was against the local cache pushing something to
> the client over UDP because UDP doesn't scale.

no it doesn't and my other point is it's not reliable, so you just bang out
packets until one finds its destination.  this, in a worst case scenario,
would flood the 'network'.

it 'works' by virtue of the fact that the problem has been reduced in scale.

'caches are multiplicative' i think rob said in his sam paper.

and there's NAT and firewalls, just for extra points etc, etc ...