smb@mhb5b.UUCP (06/13/83)
We're changing the names of our machines.... Finally, at long last, we're going to stop having two sets of names, the official 'mhb5?' names and the nice pronounceable Homeric names that everyone uses. Specifically, the following changes will be made, effective July 1: mhb5a -> penelope mhb5b -> ulysses mhb5c -> circe mddm -> mentor mhb5z -> telly We will try to operate with both names until about July 15. For example, we will disable certain name-checking for uucp, and sites that we poll will be called twice, once with each name. BTL sites that use the Indian Hill Action data for the L.sys files will receive the changes automatically; other sites should add duplicate entries for our machines showing the new names. --Steve Bellovin ulysses!smb
smb@mhb5b.UUCP (07/01/83)
This is a reminder that as of July 1, the following name changes will take effect: mhb5a -> penelope mhb5b -> ulysses mhb5c -> circe mhb5z -> telemachus mddm -> mentor There are two corrections from the earlier announcement of the name change. First, the new name of mhb5z is telemachus, not telly. Second, those of you who call mhb5b/ulysses should please change the Dataswitch request code (what you type after it says 'Request' at you) from 'b' to 'u' -- we're trying to be consistent. The old names, and the old request code, should work for about another two weeks; after that, it's the new names only. Sites that use the L.sys information from Indian Hill Network Action Central will automatically receive the proper data. --Steve Bellovin ulysses!smb
dan@digi-g.UUCP (Dan Messinger) (02/09/85)
Oops! It appears that there are two systems in the world with the
same name. We have an AT running Xenix here that we named 'snow'.
It doesn't get news, but it did get into the uucp map database. We
have recently received messages intended for another system named
'snow' that is in the UK (the path to our 'snow' must be shorter :-) ).
Sorry about the confusion. We will change our system name to 'white'.
Please modify your routing databases to change 'inhp4!umn-cs!digi-g!snow'
to be 'white', or just illiminate it. To those that sent mail to the
original 'snow', my mailer will return them to you. (To the map makers:
I will send the proper form to you very soon)
If there is another 'white' in the world, please let me know FAST. We
have no indication that such a site exists, so I think it is safe.
Dan Messinger
ihnp4!umn-cs!digi-g!{white!}dandave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/14/85)
In article <484@digi-g.UUCP> dan@digi-g.UUCP (Dan Messinger) writes: ||Oops! It appears that there are two systems in the world with the ||same name. We have an AT running Xenix here that we named 'snow'. || ... We will change our system name to 'white'. This silliness exemplifies the problems we'll continue to have as the net grows, if people insist on picking names which are unrelated to their organization. You've got an AT running Xenix? Gee, I wonder how many others out there will have an AT running Xenix within a year. And how many of them will decide to call their machines "snow", or "white", or "at", or "micro"? Remember, you can never be sure that once you have people working on your machine, some of them will want to contact the outside world. So don't say "Oh, well, it's just for internal use." Please, people. It may be fun to have cute names, but the net is hard enough to find your way around as it is. Couldn't you use "digi-snow" or "digi-white"? Or (horrors) "digi-at"? -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/14/85)
In article <484@digi-g.UUCP> dan@digi-g.UUCP (Dan Messinger) writes: ||Oops! It appears that there are two systems in the world with the ||same name. We have an AT running Xenix here that we named 'snow'. || ... We will change our system name to 'white'. This silliness exemplifies the problems we'll continue to have as the net grows, if people insist on picking names which are unrelated to their organization. You've got an AT running Xenix? Gee, I wonder how many others out there will have an AT running Xenix within a year. And how many of them will decide to call their machines "snow", or "white", or "at", or "micro"? Remember, you can never be sure that once you have people working on your machine, some of them won't want to contact the outside world. So don't say "Oh, well, it's just for internal use." PLEASE, people. It may be fun to have cute names, but the net is hard enough to find your way around as it is. Couldn't you use "digi-snow" or "digi-white"? Or (horrors) "digi-at"? -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave
matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (02/15/85)
In article <lsuc.405> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <484@digi-g.UUCP> dan@digi-g.UUCP (Dan Messinger) writes: >||Oops! It appears that there are two systems in the world with the >||same name. > >This silliness exemplifies the problems we'll continue to have >as the net grows, if people insist on picking names which are >unrelated to their organization. > . . . . >Please, people. It may be fun to have cute names, but the net is >hard enough to find your way around as it is. Couldn't you use >"digi-snow" or "digi-white"? Or (horrors) "digi-at"? >-- Haven't you heard? Mark Horton, on behalf of the "UUCP Project", wants us all to keep our host names down to 6 characters. Why? I don't really know, but I understand that a certain large unix vendor sold a binary-only uucp implementation which only allows six char- acters. This could be coincidence of course. Meanwhile, AT&T-BL, through their gateway site ihnp4 (one of the truly greatest boons to the net) wants sites such as "gargoyle" *not* to truncate their uucp name at all. What, pray tell, is the party line in this matter? And who are the party members? How about if each site is allowed only a name which would be accepted by its link editor as a valid global symbol? :-( _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/15/85)
In article <484@digi-g.UUCP> dan@digi-g.UUCP (Dan Messinger) writes: ||Oops! It appears that there are two systems in the world with the ||same name. We have an AT running Xenix here that we named 'snow'. || ... We will change our system name to 'white'. This silliness exemplifies the problems we'll continue to have as the net grows, if people insist on picking names which are unrelated to their organization. You've got an AT running Xenix? Gee, I wonder how many others out there will have an AT running Xenix within a year. And how many of them will decide to call their machines "snow", or "white", or "at", or "micro"? Remember, you can never be sure that once you have people working on your machine, some of them won't want to contact the outside world. So don't say "Oh, well, it's just for internal use." PLEASE, people. It may be fun to have cute names, but the net is hard enough to find your way around as it is. Couldn't you use "digi-snow" or "digi-white"? Or (horrors) "digi-at"? Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (02/15/85)
> From: matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) > Subject: Re: name change > Message-ID: <604@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP> > Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 17:05:37 EST > Article-I.D.: oddjob.604 > Haven't you heard? Mark Horton, on behalf of the "UUCP Project", > wants us all to keep our host names down to 6 characters. Why? I > don't really know, but I understand that a certain large unix vendor > sold a binary-only uucp implementation which only allows six char- > acters. This could be coincidence of course. Do you think you could possibly control your paranoia for a while? The six-character limit (which, by the way, is that the name be unique in the first six characters, not that it be six characters only) came with System V, about two years ago. That far antedates the UUCP project. What the hell do you want Mark to do (and it's not just Mark, incidentally; there was a large group involved in discussing the subject), pick a solution that will break half the machines on the net? The Prime Directive of the project was that no solution would be considered that demanded universal co-operation, because we know damned well that we *can't* (not won't, can't) get it. > Meanwhile, AT&T-BL, through their gateway site ihnp4 (one of the > truly greatest boons to the net) wants sites such as "gargoyle" *not* > to truncate their uucp name at all. The six-character truncation was a mistake. Everyone involved agrees. So what did AT&T Bell Laboratories do? We fixed it. The new uucp (called honey danber, for its authors) is what's being run on ihnp4, ulysses, cbosgd, and a host of other sites. I'm told it's available to the outside world now, through the usual AT&T Technologies licensing channels. (I should point out, of course, that historically uucp limited site names to 7 characters -- remember that famous hack in mail to expand 'researc' to 'research'? And of course, early versions (V7, 4.1bsd, maybe some others) had problems if any site name was a prefix of another....)
hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) (02/16/85)
In article <405@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >This silliness exemplifies the problems we'll continue to have >as the net grows, if people insist on picking names which are >unrelated to their organization. > >Couldn't you use "digi-snow" or "digi-white"? Or (horrors) "digi-at"? Another, better, solution is to use a decent domain scheme (or a decent edge database system) to avoid the problem of name ambiguities. And I don't mean geographic domains, either! There is no *good* reason for using the proposed geographic domain system. If the primary reason for going to a geographic domain system is to reduce the administrative load and table maintenance, there are easier and better ways. A "flatter" namespace is much easier to use. I would *greatly* prefer our machines to be known as plus5.uucp instead of plus5.geographic.uucp for several reasons: - shorter to type - makes sense if we have sites in many geographic regions - fewer table entries to maintain There are *many* sites on the net which do not meet the proposed requirements for a second level domain but have offices distributed amongst many geographic domains. Other than Sun, HP, Dec, Tek, ATT, and any others which clearly meet the proposed requirement (now), we have Gould, Perkin-Elmer, Interactive Systems, Intel, Masscomp, CCI, and untold smaller firms which span the proposed geographic boundaries. "Forcing" these people to join local domains or to setup multiple domain addresses just makes for bigger tables and greater frustration for users (because all the names are "hidden" below the geographic subdomain). Administration/registration of a "flatter" namespace can be easily handled by separating the "assistant" administrators/registrars from the actual second level domain names. We could even use the current regional map coordinators for the job. -- Hokey ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey 314-725-9492
berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval) (02/16/85)
In article <1109@ulysses.UUCP> smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) writes: >The new uucp (called >honey danber, for its authors) is what's being run on >ihnp4, ulysses, cbosgd, and a host of other sites. I'm told it's available >to the outside world now, through the usual AT&T Technologies licensing >channels. Well, the polite fellow who answered 800-828-UNIX this morning (well, MY morning, his afternoon) said there was something called "Basic Net Utilities" that included an enhanced uucp, ct and cu. I guess this is the long-awaited honey danber. I am going to get a "nifty glossy brochure" soon. My best information is that it costs $5000 for the first CPU and $1000 for each subsequent CPU. The $5K bucks includes source. An option if you are an OEM is to sublicense it for a one-time $1000 fee and $250 per CPU. THis is all I know about the legal, licensing and money hassles, so please don't ask me any questions. YOU can call 800-828-UNIX too.... Meanwhile I'm waiting for June, a new fiscal year and a renewed engineering budget... -- La musique est une science qui veut qu`on rit et chante et dance. -- Guillaume de Machaut Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900 (kerch@lll-tis.ARPA)
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/17/85)
Anyone know whether AT&T has an educational price for howdy doody, er,
bandy honber? Let's see, our UNIX source license cost $800, which is
about 1/54 of $43K, so the $5,000 UUCP should be $93 for us. No?
(Oh, I forgot - AT&T is in the software business now. Sigh.)
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davehokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) (02/20/85)
I received a reply to my posting from Mark Horton. What follows is his letter (reprinted with permission, of course) and my response. To: wucs!ihnp4!cbosgd!mark Subject: Re: name change > Hokey - what exactly are you proposing? Clearly there must be some > rule for who is entitled to a 2nd level domain. If anyone is allowed > to have a 2nd level domain, the number would grow so rapidly that > there would be no way to keep an accurate map, and no reasonable way > to deal with mail sent to a 2nd level domain that isn't recognized. I would prefer that any organization can get a second level domain. I realize that, at present, sites are treated as second level domains, but I believe this to be unnecessary. Why is an accurate map necessary (accuracte with respect to completeness, not correctness)? I realize that by limiting the number of second level domains an "accurate" map of second level domains is easy. There is a very easy way to deal with unrecognized second level domains: the "ring" scheme I mentioned in my mail to the mailing list. I realize I haven't followed up with an in-depth description of the scheme, but it seems pretty easy. (Subsequent emphasis around *route* and *address* is partially for my benefit, as well as for any others who might see this but do not have a clear understanding of the ramifications.) Basically, we define a "list" of backbone sites. Mail from The Depths (or from The Outside) eventually reaches a backbone site. If the backbone does not know how to route the mail to the correct destination, it passes the message to its "right-hand" neighbor. If the message returns to the initial backbone site (with the same *address*), it can be rejected. We can tell if the message has been seen at "our" site by parsing the header for a Received-by: line with our name on it. Small amounts of intelligence will be required because Other Mailers might try to *route* the mail through our site; in this case the destination will be a *route* instead of an *address*. > There is no requirement that domains be geographic. In fact, we > expect to have some non-geographic domains, but only those that > would be as large as the geographic domains. The requirements for non-geographic domains are too strict, and there will be, I believe, great resistance toward their creation. Geographic domains Stink for organizations which have machines in different geographic domains. The only other alternatives are for "groups" to band together. If we are going to go to that trouble, we might as well register directly under EDU, COM, GOV, MIL, or ORG, and bypass the .UUCP domain entirely. (I have already discussed this point with Jon Postel.) Either that, or form the same domains under .UUCP (which seems silly to me). > I gather you have some alternative in mind. What is it? > > Mark Fix the netnews software to permit "permanent" articles. This will help solve many existing problems the net now faces, and will also provide a perfect mechanism for automatically updating site connectivity and domain information. Help me feel good about the way the uucp-mail project is going, so I feel good about spending my (mostly non-existent) spare time on the mailer. Discuss these issues over the net in a moderated format, thereby providing as many as possible as much information as we can, and also limit the rehash of well-understood issues by those who have slogged through so much in the past. Consider the possibility of a higher level of funding to support the design, documentation, and software effort (the order of the projects is significant). I don't really care *who* gets paid to do this; I do get frustrated because this is taking so long, primarily because we all have higher-priority things to do (mostly, we all have to earn a living). How did I do? Hokey -- Hokey ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey 314-725-9492
steve@umd-cs.UUCP (Steven M. Miller) (09/20/86)
Effective Friday Sept. 19 site umd-cs will be umnd-cs.
Here's our revised map entry
#N umnd-cs
#S Sun 2/120, 4.2 BSD UNIX
#O University of Minnesota at Duluth, Computer Science
#C Steven M. Miller
#E umnd-cs!Postmaster
#T +1 218 726-7664
#P MG 330, Computer Science, UMD, 10 University Drive, Duluth, MN, 55812
#L 92 6' W / 46 48' N city
#R
#U dayton umd-ua
#W umd-cs!steve (Steven M. Miller) Thu Sep 18 17:17:17 CST 1986
umnd-cs = umn-duluth.csnet
umnd-cs = umd-cs
umnd-cs dicome!(DEMAND), quest!(DEMAND+LOW), rosevax!(DEMAND),
srcsip!(DEMAND+LOW), umd-ua!(LOCAL), umn-cs!(DIRECT+HIGH),
umnstat!(EVENING)
umnd-cs-net=@{umnd-cs-gw}(LOCAL)
--
Spoken: Steven M. Miller UUCP: umd-cs!steve CSNET: steve%umn-duluth
USNail: Computer Science Dept, University of Minnesota at Duluth
10 University Drive, Duluth, MN 55812