On Wed, Feb 04, 1998 at 11:43:56AM -0500, James A.Treacy wrote: > > > > or ftp.ca.us.debian.org (i.e. Include the state in the fqdn) > > > > > > This makes the most sense. We're going to end up with some longer fqdns, > > > but who cares, really? The only concern is that we might then have to > > > come up with ways of keeping track of other mirrors in countries that > > > don't have states -- like, for instance, ftp.london.uk.debian.org vs > > > ftp.liverpool.uk.debian.org if there were two in the uk. > > > > I agree. Since the point of the multiple mirrors is "to use a mirror close > > to you", then the location should be in the name. > > > > Also, "ftp.us.debian.org" should be set up with IP addresses of all the > > ftp sites in the us, thus rotating among them in a fairly even matter. > > This way, it will even the general load among all mirrors and still allow > > people who know where they want to go to get there directly. > > > As this solution seems to have the greatest support (and happens to be the > one I like :), I'm going with it. I thought someone had made the (absolutely true) point that geographic proximity is only barely correlated with network proximity, if at all. -- G. Branden Robinson | We either learn from history or, Purdue University | uh, well, something bad will happen. branden@purdue.edu | -- Bob Church http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpFlTLbfMHgE.pgp
Description: PGP signature