David MacQuigg wrote:
Hector Santos wrote:
I do think, in my opinion, your first illustration is pretty
fundamental and much easier to understand, grasp without reading the
context.
+1
I'm looking for constructive criticism. If you believe the model is
oversimplified, give me an example of an important system that the model
should cover.
Backup MXes. Nowadays, having good connections and much spam, backup
MXes are avoided by the organizations whose networks would require to
outsource them (while primary MXes are contracted in.) Should
connections worsen, e.g. for solar activity[1], war, or terrorism,
those organizations may be in for a hard surprise.
I had hoped that a protocol for configuring forwarding would have
smoothly lent itself to also configure secondary MXes[2], so as to
kill both birds with one stone, but either I lack the brain resources
to see its simplicity, or it is by far more complicate than what I can
manage in my spare time :-(
--
[1] http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm
[2] http://fixforwarding.org/wiki/boundary#Backup_MXes