From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199409292052.QAA10993@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: No "TOP" of the docuverse [Was: URC usage scenarios ]
To: J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk (Jon P. Knight)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 16:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.05.9409292130.J27413-a100000@suna> from "Jon P. Knight" at Sep 29, 94 09:41:31 pm
Jon P. Knight said this:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:
> > I suggest that any scenario involving a "root" or "top" server is
> > doomed to fail.
> >
> > There are two key features to the URN/URC service: high availability
> > and authentication. If you rely on a "root" server, you create a
> > single point of failure, which conflicts badly with the goal of
> > high availability.
>
> What about if the ``top'' or ``root'' was a multicast group with lots of
> authoritive servers listening in for queries for URN/URC mappings that
> can't be handled by more localised heirarchies.
I've always been interested in the applications of multicasting to the
informatiion retrieval problem. Several purposes make a hell of a lot of
sense:
1. 1 multicast address for all large whois++ servers for centroid
advertisement
2. using multicast to 'advertise' a resource or the need for a given
resource.
3. efficient pre-emptive cache replication across large backbone caches.
etc..
etc...
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html"> <ADDRESS>Michael Mealling</ADDRESS> <ADDRESS>michael.mealling@oit.gatech.edu</ADDRESS></A>