You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net> on 1999/06/30 22:55:10 UTC
FW: Mirror sites and geographic location...
Not acked.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason L. Buberel [mailto:jasonb@isn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 3:33 PM
To: apache@apache.org
Subject: Mirror sites and geographic location...
Would you mind categorizing your mirror sites according to geographic
location? A long list of URLs doesn't actually tell me which site is
closest. Yes, I know that geographic proximity does equal network proximity,
but at least a general indicator of Countries and Regions would be nice
(USA - West Coast; USA - Midwest; USA - East Coast; Canada; etc.).
Thanks,
jason
==========================
Jason L. Buberel - ISN.com
jasonb@isn.com - 408-617-7441
==========================
Re: Mirror sites and geographic location...
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> Though it would be tempting to copy across a small image map, where
> maintainers can click on to get the lat/lon, and a second one generated
> over night which has red dots. And user's can click for your 'nearest'.
Now, *there's* an excellent idea! Of course, in ye olden dayes
one could extract the ICBM address from the whois database. I
think it's still required for 6bone sites, curiously enough.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
Re: Mirror sites and geographic location...
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> >
> > > > Would you mind categorizing your mirror sites according to geographic
> > > > location? A long list of URLs doesn't actually tell me which site is
> > > > closest. Yes, I know that geographic proximity does equal network proximity,
> > > > but at least a general indicator of Countries and Regions would be nice
> > > > (USA - West Coast; USA - Midwest; USA - East Coast; Canada; etc.).
> > >
> > > They are already categorized by country (yes, there is the perhaps
> > > mistaken assumption that [.com,.net,.org] = .us). Categorizing further
> > > would be a bear to maintain, since network proximity is so variant over
> > > time. If a mirror site wants to let us know about its
> > > location/connectivity, though, we do have a field for that in the DB.
> >
> > Though it would be tempting to copy across a small image map, where
> > maintainers can click on to get the lat/lon, and a second one generated
> > over night which has red dots. And user's can click for your 'nearest'.
>
> Yeah, if only whois records still had latitude/longitude as standard
> fields. =)
I just ran the mirror.list against the ripe, asian and NIC whois, and then
used the 'grep'ped addresses against ai global gazetteer. But it is
hopeless, half the domains we have in places like e.g. hk are actually
registered in california. iAnd the other half... well guess how many
places there are called 'Rochester'...
I just adapted an old script to be a web based editor with map for the
'mirrors.lists' file. It is in http:/www.apache.org/~dirkx. But it would
mean luring any and all maintainers to that page. I guess I have to sit
down for an evening and manually map the 260 addresses or so before
bootstrapping this.
Dw.
Re: Mirror sites and geographic location...
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@hyperreal.org>.
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> > > Would you mind categorizing your mirror sites according to geographic
> > > location? A long list of URLs doesn't actually tell me which site is
> > > closest. Yes, I know that geographic proximity does equal network proximity,
> > > but at least a general indicator of Countries and Regions would be nice
> > > (USA - West Coast; USA - Midwest; USA - East Coast; Canada; etc.).
> >
> > They are already categorized by country (yes, there is the perhaps
> > mistaken assumption that [.com,.net,.org] = .us). Categorizing further
> > would be a bear to maintain, since network proximity is so variant over
> > time. If a mirror site wants to let us know about its
> > location/connectivity, though, we do have a field for that in the DB.
>
> Though it would be tempting to copy across a small image map, where
> maintainers can click on to get the lat/lon, and a second one generated
> over night which has red dots. And user's can click for your 'nearest'.
Yeah, if only whois records still had latitude/longitude as standard
fields. =)
Brian
Re: Mirror sites and geographic location...
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Would you mind categorizing your mirror sites according to geographic
> > location? A long list of URLs doesn't actually tell me which site is
> > closest. Yes, I know that geographic proximity does equal network proximity,
> > but at least a general indicator of Countries and Regions would be nice
> > (USA - West Coast; USA - Midwest; USA - East Coast; Canada; etc.).
>
> They are already categorized by country (yes, there is the perhaps
> mistaken assumption that [.com,.net,.org] = .us). Categorizing further
> would be a bear to maintain, since network proximity is so variant over
> time. If a mirror site wants to let us know about its
> location/connectivity, though, we do have a field for that in the DB.
Though it would be tempting to copy across a small image map, where
maintainers can click on to get the lat/lon, and a second one generated
over night which has red dots. And user's can click for your 'nearest'.
Dw.
Re: Mirror sites and geographic location...
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@hyperreal.org>.
> Would you mind categorizing your mirror sites according to geographic
> location? A long list of URLs doesn't actually tell me which site is
> closest. Yes, I know that geographic proximity does equal network proximity,
> but at least a general indicator of Countries and Regions would be nice
> (USA - West Coast; USA - Midwest; USA - East Coast; Canada; etc.).
They are already categorized by country (yes, there is the perhaps
mistaken assumption that [.com,.net,.org] = .us). Categorizing further
would be a bear to maintain, since network proximity is so variant over
time. If a mirror site wants to let us know about its
location/connectivity, though, we do have a field for that in the DB.
Brian