🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43q2g7$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Robert0552 <rober...@aol.com> wrote:
>>And for anyone who things it doesn't matter because they're not in the
>US, I'd 
>>just like to point out that both the routing arbiter and the internic are
>US 
>>based. Without their cooperation you're not on the internet. So it
>definately 
>>matters.
>
>There is no "base" for the Internet.  You could take out all the Internet
>sites in the US and it would still be going in the rest of the world. 
>That
>was the whole point behind the Internet... to have a network that would
>still
>run just even if the majority of the sites were taken out.

I think what the previous poster meant  was that the computers in the US
that serve as "engines" for managing the flow if info through links could
affect other networks.  For example, if Canada's link to Europe was through
the US and the US link went down, Canada would have to re-route the connection
or be cut off.  The idea that removing nodes won't affect other connections
is only true in a completely connected network, which, strictly speaking, the
Internet is not.  In other words, there are sensetive connections in the Internet
that, if broken, could fragment the Internet into separate networks each fully
functional but no longer connected to each other.

Matt.
-- 
Psionic Dragon  --------------------------------------------------
 --=(UDIC)=--  ---------------------------------------------------
Toronto Ontario Canada  ------------------------------------------
Email: dun...@psych.utoronto.edu  --------------------------------