mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (04/28/89)
In <1989Apr24.203137.5835@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > [...] > And of course, you Internet folks wouldn't even *consider* accepting some > of the things that make life easier for us uucp folks, in return for all > the extra connectivity *you* now have, even though we are (by some measures > at least) the larger community. Heavens no. We all know that the Internet > is divinely ordained, and all others are inferior heathens. The fact that > the Internet is the smaller of the two groups is totally irrelevant, because > the Internet way of doing things is the One True Way that all should follow. Henry, you're usually 100% right on in these matters, but my understanding is that the UUCP network is *way* smaller than the Internet, possibly up to an order of magnitude smaller. The figure I got from the INTEROP '88 Conference (September 1988) was that the *known* connected Internet consists of about 56,000 hosts. Informal estimates by people I know who are involved with the Internet Advisory Board and Internet Experimental Task Force put the number at more like 80,000-100,000. This is for *connected* sites. If you add all the hosts that are connected by mail relays (other than UUCP forwarding), or that are on non-connected networks, but still use TCP/IP internally and SMTP (RFC-821) for mail transport and RFC822 for mail message format, the number would swell past 200,000. Contrast this with the estimated size of the UUCP network, which is somewhere around 20,000 (the UUCP Map has about 15,000, right, plus a fudge factor of 33%). Subtract from that number the sites in the UUCP Network that are also Internet sites or site gateways (that use RFC821/822) and the relative sizes bewcome more clear. Its pioneering history notwithstanding, I believe that in 1989 the original V7 UUCP mail format is really not much more than a footnote. Michael C. Berch mcb@ncis.llnl.gov / uunet!ncis.llnl.gov!mcb
scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) (04/29/89)
In article <163@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: > [...] >Contrast this with the estimated size of the UUCP network, which is >somewhere around 20,000 (the UUCP Map has about 15,000, right, plus a >fudge factor of 33%). Subtract from that number the sites in the UUCP >Network that are also Internet sites or site gateways (that use >RFC821/822) and the relative sizes bewcome more clear. > >Its pioneering history notwithstanding, I believe that in 1989 the >original V7 UUCP mail format is really not much more than a footnote. So now the 20,000 sites who cannot (for one reason or another) be on the Internet are footnotes? I'd like to thank you for making us "feel good" because we do not have the resorces (read: money) to be on the Internet! Do we, a small company now a division of a larger company in *cut-back* mode, want to be on the Internet? It is entirely possible (read: the subject has come up for discussion because I keep bringing it up). But do I want to participate with the elitist @#$%s who have lost the initial Usenet spirit of cooperation in a diverse, global community? Well, to those I feed news to via a modem and uucp, if we do decided on joining the Internet, we will continue to supply this service eventhough the elitists don't want us to. By the way, if someone at Bellcore is reading this, could you please tell us if internal email is still passed via uucp? It has only been 1.5 years since I was a consultant there and as I recalled, they had a Micom (serial) network that allowed them to get to any machine from any machine in the company. I had heard they were trying to go ethernet, so is this still true? -- scott barman {gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott
lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (04/29/89)
In article <163@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >Contrast this with the estimated size of the UUCP network, which is >somewhere around 20,000 (the UUCP Map has about 15,000, right, plus a >fudge factor of 33%). Subtract from that number the sites in the UUCP >Network that are also Internet sites or site gateways (that use >RFC821/822) and the relative sizes bewcome more clear. No way! You could take those 15,000 and multiply by three and still come up short. Nearly every map entry I'm aware of (for Alberta anyway) hides *at* *least* three additional machines behind it. We publish one map entry that represents about 25 systems. The U of Alberta is similar. With the conversion to domain names, many sites just list their gateway system(s) in the maps. Therefore it's safe to say that the number of UUCP machines is much larger than the number you gave, although there is no practical way to determine the number of machines on each of these "networks." These days it seems that the number of non-822 conformant sites matches closely the number of connected sites running AT&T System V :-) -- Lyndon Nerenberg Computing Services Athabasca University {alberta,attvcr,ncc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@nexus.ca
cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM (Carl Rigney) (04/29/89)
In article <552@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> lyndon@auvax.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >In article <163@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >>Contrast this with the estimated size of the UUCP network, which is >>somewhere around 20,000 (the UUCP Map has about 15,000, right, plus a >>fudge factor of 33%). >No way! You could take those 15,000 and multiply by three and still come up >short. Nearly every map entry I'm aware of (for Alberta anyway) hides I suspect a considerable underestimate. amdcad.amd.com is not directly connected to the internet (we have an MX forwarder; thanks ames!), but is in the UUCP maps. The 619 machines in the .amd.com domain are not listed in the uucp maps (much to the moderators' relief, I'm sure :-). amdcad accepts both user@site.amd.com and amdcad!site!user style addressing. As far as I know we're RFC-822 compliant, and use smail to interface cleanly to the UUCP world. Writing off connectivity to 15,000 sites that use ! just so you can talk to 100,000 sites that use @ doesn't strike me as a good idea. We want to talk to all 115,000. >These days it seems that the number of non-822 conformant sites >matches closely the number of connected sites running AT&T System V :-) Entirely too close to the truth, I suspect. :-( --Carl Rigney cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM {ames decwrl gatech pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!cdr 408-749-2453 The World Network is a trademark of AMD.
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (04/30/89)
In article <163@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >Informal estimates by people I know who are involved with the >Internet Advisory Board and Internet Experimental Task Force put the >number at more like 80,000-100,000. This is for *connected* sites. So this includes all the hosts on a local ethernet that can reach an Internet gateway, then? I mean, Berkeley has something over 1,000 Sun workstations, and those all can telnet or ftp to the Internet; so that makes them "Internet" hosts? In which case, using the UUCP maps as a count of hosts is probably off by an order of magnitude. AMD mentioned 600 nodes hiding behind their lone UUCP map entry. Pyramid has over 250. There are scads of companies with fully connected workstations and timesharing systems whose only tie to the rest of the world is their one UUCP host. And of course those networks all use RFC-822 and talk SMTP. On the other hand, I suspect that 200,000 is too small for the Internet. Sun Microsystems has -- what -- 6,000 nodes? 10,000? How about DEC's E-net? Apple and Intel have joined the Internet now, too. Lots of nodes there. <csg>
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/30/89)
In article <552@aurora.AthabascaU.CA>, lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: > No way! You could take those 15,000 and multiply by three and still come up > short. Nearly every map entry I'm aware of (for Alberta anyway) hides > *at* *least* three additional machines behind it. Yes. For example, "ficc" is the common uucp name for at least 30 machines, with more every day. More machiens are visible on the Internet because it's advantageous to expose all your internal machines to it. With uucp it's to your advantage to hide your internal net. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (04/30/89)
In article <68215@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > In <163@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: > >Informal estimates by people I know who are involved with the > >Internet Advisory Board and Internet Experimental Task Force put the > >number at more like 80,000-100,000. This is for *connected* sites. > > So this includes all the hosts on a local ethernet that can reach an Internet > gateway, then? I mean, Berkeley has something over 1,000 Sun workstations, and > those all can telnet or ftp to the Internet; so that makes them "Internet" > hosts? Yes. By definition. But not all hosts on LANs that can reach a system that is connected to an Internet network can telnet or ftp to the outside; the gateway may specifically be set up NOT to route packets between the Internet and the LAN, but would (for example) be set up to forward mail. This is the case at present at Sun and many other places. These hosts are not on the Internet for IP purposes, but are for mail purposes. This is the metric used to come up with the 200,000 number. > In which case, using the UUCP maps as a count of hosts is probably off by an > order of magnitude. AMD mentioned 600 nodes hiding behind their lone UUCP map > entry. Pyramid has over 250. There are scads of companies with fully connected > workstations and timesharing systems whose only tie to the rest of the world > is their one UUCP host. > > And of course those networks all use RFC-822 and talk SMTP. Most of them do. And that's why they're counted in the Internet group and not in the UUCP group. The purpose of my article was to compare the size of the RFC-821/822 community vs. the size of the V7 UUCP mail community. A lower bound on the size of the former is the connected Internet; an upper bound is the total number of systems speaking TCP/IP that have been sold and are still operating. I have trouble sizing the UUCP mail community, because so many sites in the UUCP Map are, as you point out, networks hiding behind a single published gateway. But, with the exception of AT&T, DEC, IBM, and a few others, a large number of those sites are really internal Internets that live in the RFC-821/822 world. Michael C. Berch mcb@ncis.llnl.gov / uunet!ncis.llnl.gov!mcb
paul@moncam.co.uk (Paul Hudson) (05/02/89)
Sob, sob .... Here we are in the UK, happily taking news and mail via UUCP. We (as far as I know) cannot be part of the Internet. On the other hand, domain addressed mail works (thanks, ukc). For the record, we have 4-6 hosts hidden behind moncam.co.uk, and we are a small site. Paul Hudson MAIL: Monotype ADG, Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4FQ, UK. PHONE: +44 (223) 420018 EMAIL: paul@moncam.co.uk, ;" FAX: +44 (223) 420911 ...!ukc!acorn!moncam!paul `"";";" "/dev/null full: please empty the bit bucket"
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (05/03/89)
In article <655@dtscp1.UUCP> scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) writes: > In <163@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: > > [...] > >Contrast this with the estimated size of the UUCP network, which is > >somewhere around 20,000 (the UUCP Map has about 15,000, right, plus a > >fudge factor of 33%). Subtract from that number the sites in the UUCP > >Network that are also Internet sites or site gateways (that use > >RFC821/822) and the relative sizes become more clear. > > > >Its pioneering history notwithstanding, I believe that in 1989 the > >original V7 UUCP mail format is really not much more than a footnote. > > So now the 20,000 sites who cannot (for one reason or another) be on > the Internet are footnotes? I'd like to thank you for making us > "feel good" because we do not have the resorces (read: money) to be on > the Internet! Scott, I think you missed the point of the article. My intent was not to belittle sites that are not on the Internet; that would be preposterous and pointless. The discussion of the size of the Internet vs. the UUCP net grew out of a discussion of Internet mail transport and format standards vs. UUCP mail transport and format standards. It does not directly depend on who is on the (copnnected) Internet, but instead on who is using RFC821/822 instead of V7 UNIX UUCP mail. The size of the Internet was brought up because I believe that the number of people using 821/822 dwarfs the number of people using V7 UUCP mail format by a significant number, probably more than an order of magnitude. It is the mail format that is the "footnote" -- as you would see if you read the article carefully -- NOT the people who use it. > Do we, a small company now a division of a larger company > in *cut-back* mode, want to be on the Internet? It is entirely possible > (read: the subject has come up for discussion because I keep bringing > it up). But do I want to participate with the elitist @#$%s who have lost > the initial Usenet spirit of cooperation in a diverse, global community? Just which "elitist @#$%s" are you referring to? I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder about Internet standards or protocols... Perhaps we should take this to private e-mail, as Internet vs. "Usenet" (i.e. UUCP) flame wars don't really belong in news.sysadmin. > Well, to those I feed news to via a modem and uucp, if we do decided on > joining the Internet, we will continue to supply this service eventhough > the elitists don't want us to. Huh? Michael C. Berch mcb@ncis.llnl.gov / uunet!ncis.llnl.gov!mcb
kent@happym.wa.com (Kent Forschmiedt) (05/03/89)
In article <163@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >... Internet consists of about 56,000 hosts. > [ and rather liberal estimates put it at perhaps 200,000 ] >... the UUCP network, is somewhere around 20,000 and concludes: >Its pioneering history notwithstanding, I believe that in 1989 the >original V7 UUCP mail format is really not much more than a footnote. I think that 10 to 25 percent of the community is a rather bulky footnote, and really deserves a few chapters of its own, don't you? -- kent@happym.wa.com, tikal!camco!happym!kent, Happy Man Corp 206-282-9598
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM (Ed Morin) (05/04/89)
> Well, to those I feed news to via a modem and uucp, if we do decided on > joining the Internet, we will continue to supply this service eventhough > the elitists don't want us to. I thought that just any organization could not join the Internet regardless of monetary resources. That is to say, they must be a government contractor or educational institution (or possibly a non-profit organization with an approved activity such as UUNET). I didn't think you could "just decide" to be on the Internet if you weren't in one of those categories... (Maybe the original poster is for all I know...) -- Ed Morin Northwest Nexus Inc. "Unix Public Access for the Masses!" edm@nwnexus.WA.COM
scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) (05/05/89)
I have been saying the same thing via email to too many people so I figured I better go public: In article <173@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: > [...] >Scott, I think you missed the point of the article. My intent was not >to belittle sites that are not on the Internet; that would be >preposterous and pointless. You're right! And I apologize. The posting came after I got feed up after reading some of the mail that seems to have burned through the asbestos lining of my mailbox! I misread the article and feel a public apology is necessary! >Just which "elitist @#$%s" are you referring to? I don't know why you >have a chip on your shoulder about Internet standards or protocols... I really don't. Honestly! But I think it works more the otherway around. I have been "told" (via private email) by some that uucp sites who do not conform to the "standards" should not be allowed to participate (I got this explained to me in a 50-line email note before I posted what I did). I have also been told by others that any email problems we get are because of non-conformance to the "standards" are also deserved. Yes, there were a few nice folk out there who even told me about how to get copies of the RFCs from sri-nic.arpa but the negative remarks were strong, lengthy, and largely uncalled for. It's like this (to those I have not written back): If you call me an ignorant bastard at least tell me why! Just one last, naieve sounding remark and I am going to drop this: I still find it difficult to accept anything that is marked REQUEST FOR COMMENT as a standard. But I should not be surprised since this is all aranged by DARPA through the DoD (you know, the ones who give us that wonderful oxymoron "military intelligence"... :-). >Perhaps we should take this to private e-mail, as Internet vs. "Usenet" >(i.e. UUCP) flame wars don't really belong in news.sysadmin. If you'd like... I grow weary of this (since it seems to be a one-sided argument anyway and I do not think I am on the right side :-) and I would rather drop the subject! >Michael C. Berch >mcb@ncis.llnl.gov / uunet!ncis.llnl.gov!mcb -- scott barman {gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott
denny@mcmi.UUCP (Denny Page) (05/05/89)
>These days it seems that the number of non-822 conformant sites >matches closely the number of connected sites running AT&T System V :-) In setting up our current (sysV) machine, installing smail was one of my first priorities. Pathalias came after. :-) -- Someday never comes
rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (05/05/89)
In article <655@dtscp1.UUCP>, scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) writes: > So now the 20,000 sites who cannot (for one reason or another) be on > the Internet are footnotes? I'd like to thank you for making us > "feel good" because we do not have the resorces (read: money) to be on > the Internet! I don't know that it is either expensive or difficult to have a registered domain-name and indirect Internet access: it's called UUNET and it is a bargain. I understand that they will not only help you get registered, but also act as your Internet forwarder, and get files via 'ftp' and uucp them to your site upon request all as part of the inexpensive service. I simply cannot think of a reason that a site in the US/Canada "cannot" be connected to the Internet directly or indirectly. It is more accurate to say that such sites _choose_ not to. It is their business whether they choose to, but it is a _choice_. Personally, I'd be much happier if those sites using the fake domain of '.UUCP' would get a legal domain name. It's not hard or costly and it would make their mail and everyone else's work better.
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (05/08/89)
In <662@dtscp1.UUCP> scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) writes:
= I still find it difficult to accept anything that is marked
=REQUEST FOR COMMENT as a standard. But I should not be surprised since
=this is all aranged by DARPA through the DoD (you know, the ones who
=give us that wonderful oxymoron "military intelligence"... :-).
It's called a Request For Comment because the authors of the first
one were a bunch of graduate students and they felt humble. It's
explained in RFC1000.
RFC's come in a variety of flavors, but most of them document standards
that mean "if you're a part of the Internet, and you're gonna do <x>
do it this way."
If it really bothers you all that much (and that attitude puzzles me),
call it a "Request for Compliance."
/r$
--
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.pete@ittg.UUCP (2301) (05/08/89)
In article <1016@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Denny Page) writes: >>These days it seems that the number of non-822 conformant sites >>matches closely the number of connected sites running AT&T System V :-) > >In setting up our current (sysV) machine, installing smail was one of >my first priorities. Pathalias came after. :-) >-- >Someday never comes Preface: I am now reading the document "Introduction to the Internet Protocols" dated 3 July 1987 by Charles L. Hedrick. Question #1: Am I on the right track towards conformity ("what is conformity?") Q #2: Do uucp sites have the ability to get _conformant_? Q #3: I am running pathalias and smail 2.5 (about a month now). Did I become 822 conformant and not know it ;-? ----- To all of you folks who thought this topic of discussion was a TOTAL waste of bandwidth, I have been sitting here learning a few things. Don't go away with a sense of disgust...pleaseeee. There are some of us out here still learning the ropes. And aint it all worth it somehow 8-) Another guy who belongs to and organization that neither has the money nor the inclination to be ARPA conformant ("what is conformity?") or did I ask that once already ;-) (see Q #1) for you real serious type. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pete Sherwood pete@ittg ie. uunet!usm3b2!ittg!pete Voice 207-796-2301 8-4EDT Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe, Princeton, Me ** No disclaimers needed here ** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pete Sherwood pete@ittg ie. uunet!usm3b2!ittg!pete Voice 207-796-2301 8-4EDT Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe, Princeton, Me ** No disclaimers needed here ** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) (05/09/89)
In article <1717@papaya.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >In <662@dtscp1.UUCP> scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) writes: >= I still find it difficult to accept anything that is marked >=REQUEST FOR COMMENT as a standard. But I should not be surprised since > >If it really bothers you all that much (and that attitude puzzles me), >call it a "Request for Compliance." > /r$ Or better yet, call it a "Requirements For Compliance." -Kent+ Kent Landfield UUCP: kent@ssbell Sterling Software FSG/IMD INTERNET: kent%ssbell.uucp@uunet.uu.net 1404 Ft. Crook Rd. South Phone: (402) 291-8300 Bellevue, NE. 68005-2969 FAX: (402) 291-4362
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (05/10/89)
In article <1046@ittg.UUCP> pete@ittg.UUCP (System Administrator @ 207-796-2301) writes: >Preface: I am now reading the document "Introduction to the Internet >Protocols" dated 3 July 1987 by Charles L. Hedrick. > >Question #1: Am I on the right track towards conformity ("what is >conformity?") Not really. One document you want is RFC976 (if only we could transmit that one back in time, it would have avoided a lot of the problems we have now). This tells how UUCP-Internet gateways should work. >Q #2: Do uucp sites have the ability to get _conformant_? Yes. Get smail, and become part of a registered domain or register one yourself. >Q #3: I am running pathalias and smail 2.5 (about a month now). Did I >become 822 conformant and not know it ;-? Partially. You're not fully conformant because pete@ittg.UUCP is not a "real" domain address. You can become fully legal several ways: 1) Become a UUNET customer and be part of their domain. You could be pete@ittg.uu.net. 2) Become a UUNET customer, and register your own domain with UUNET as your domain forwarder. 3) Get some Internet site to agree to be your forwarder, and pay the UUNET gang a one-time fee: $35, I think, and they'll do your paperwork for you. 4) Like 3, only file the registration information yourself. Not recommended except for experts. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (05/10/89)
In article <81@nwnexus.WA.COM>, edm@nwnexus.WA.COM (Ed Morin) writes: > I thought that just any organization could not join the Internet regardless > of monetary resources. Aside from getting indirect Internet access by becoming a UUNET subscriber, most anyone can connect with the regional network in their area if willing to pay the network costs. The regional networks together with the DoD & NSF backbones constitute the Internet. It really is a bunch of cooperating networks rather than one single net -- hence the name. Only DoD-affiliated organisations can be part of the MILnet which is dedicated to military-related organisations, but that is a small part of the Internet these days... rja@edison.cho.ge.com
edward@engr.uky.edu (Edward C. Bennett) (05/10/89)
In article <1016@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Denny Page) writes: >>These days it seems that the number of non-822 conformant sites >>matches closely the number of connected sites running AT&T System V :-) >In setting up our current (sysV) machine, installing smail was one of >my first priorities. Pathalias came after. :-) You can almost hear the crowd chanting... MMDF! MMDF! MMDF! -- Edward C. Bennett - The other MMDF guy DOMAIN: edward@engr.uky.edu (606) 257-4938 UUCP: {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!ukecc!edward "Goodnight M.A." BITNET: edward%engr.uky.edu@ukma "He's become a growling, snarling mass of white-hot canine terror"
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (05/13/89)
In article <552@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> lyndon@auvax.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >short. Nearly every map entry I'm aware of (for Alberta anyway) hides >*at* *least* three additional machines behind it. Definitely. At my last company, a leaf node at a very small company, there were about 6 machines hiding behind the map entry (not including a dozen more that no one bothered to setup news or mail on; dark ages). Currently I'm again at a very small company, and again a news leaf; we have maybe 10 serious Unix systems currently accessible to uucp mail from the net, and maybe another 20 machines that no one uses for mail (e.g. 386 MSDOS systems; there are about twice as many machines as employees here (!), but I would only count the ones people actually read mail on). I would guess that *most* of the leafs on the net are small organizations like this, with 3-20 (median 6???) machines, and that as a rule of thumb, the number of hidden systems grows with the connectivity indicated in the map entry. Some gross estimate of total number of uucp systems could be made based on a guess about the distribution of these numbers. >there is no practical way to determine the number of machines on each of >these "networks." How about encouraging people to estimate this in their published map entry? And encouraging those who prefer not to publish to at least privately email the figure to the mapping project? Along with estimated total number of people accessible by mail. Should be some interesting numbers. Oh yeah...don't forget international sites; ATT for instance has many systems and people in Japan you can reach by mail, but you'd never know that by map entries. Phone costs are too high for any of them to participate in news, so they're pretty low profile. Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug doug@xdos.com Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary "Of course, I'm no rocket scientist" -- Randell Jesup, Capt. Boinger Corps
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (05/13/89)
In article <3174@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >Partially. You're not fully conformant because pete@ittg.UUCP is not >a "real" domain address. >You can become fully legal several ways: Since all of your options are unsatisfactory to many people, you can assume that ".UUCP" is never going to go away, at least not via those options. All of them involved mandating connectivity, e.g. through uunet. Well, that's too expensive a solution for a large fraction of the leaf nodes (very small organizations, remember?) for too small of a payoff. "Hey, we already get news, what's the big deal?" If you want people to have "real" domain addresses, you need to have a way of *cheaply* assigning them to leaf nodes without requiring a change in their connectivity. When I say "cheap", I mean less than a hundred bucks per year, preferably about $35. (Or is this already possible?) Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug doug@xdos.com Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary "Of course, I'm no rocket scientist" -- Randell Jesup, Capt. Boinger Corps
rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) (05/14/89)
> If you want people to have "real" domain addresses, you need to have > a way of *cheaply* assigning them to leaf nodes without requiring a > change in their connectivity. When I say "cheap", I mean less than > a hundred bucks per year, preferably about $35. (Or is this already > possible?) Odd that you should pick that amount. uunet has been doing domain registrations since August, 1988 for a one time fee of $35. (mail to domain-request@uunet.uu.net for details) ---rick
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (05/16/89)
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes:
If you want people to have "real" domain addresses, you need to have
a way of *cheaply* assigning them to leaf nodes without requiring a
change in their connectivity. When I say "cheap", I mean less than
a hundred bucks per year, preferably about $35.
Does $0 count?
I routinely offer to do domain registrations for my immediate UUCP
neighbors. I offer nameservice and MX forwarding for them. No
hassles, no problems, and no $$$.
--Karl
domain contact for, e.g.,
ysu.edu and morningstar.comkarl@mstar.MorningStar.COM (Karl Fox) (05/18/89)
In article <KARL.89May15154722@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >I routinely offer to do domain registrations for my immediate UUCP >neighbors. I offer nameservice and MX forwarding for them. No >hassles, no problems, and no $$$. > >--Karl >domain contact for, e.g., >ysu.edu and morningstar.com And we appreciate it, too! -- Karl Fox, Morning Star Technologies karl@MorningStar.COM karl@mstar.UUCP mstar!karl@cis.ohio-state.edu
allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (05/19/89)
As quoted from <285@xdos.UUCP> by doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt): +--------------- | If you want people to have "real" domain addresses, you need to have | a way of *cheaply* assigning them to leaf nodes without requiring a | change in their connectivity. When I say "cheap", I mean less than | a hundred bucks per year, preferably about $35. (Or is this already | possible?) +--------------- Only possible to a limited extent. For example, ncoast was able to become NCoast.ORG via my donation of $35 to the cause (a ONE-TIME fee, to UUNET) -- but this was because hal.cwru.edu was willing to be our forwarder. This probably isn't possible for all sites; I suspect the only reason CWRU agreed to it is because ncoast is already Cleveland's "back-up" Usenet hub. And while there may be many philanthropic universities out there, willing to be Internet forwarders for sites which ask for it; but there aren't enough to be forwarders for *every* UUCP site. My "dream solution" is to have a bunch of UUNETs connected over a WAN, in major cities throughout the U.S. Fat chance! --it'd cost too much, and who would pay for it? Although if every Usenet site had to pay $500/year and charged the users to cover it, it wouldn't be *that* bad. On ncoast, with 70 real users n /etc/passwd and 35 "arbitron" NetReaders, that amounts to $15/user/year by the arbitron net-readers count and $7.50/user/year by real users in /etc/passwd. Surely the Usenet is worth *that* much! And if you charge UUCP accounts as well, the per-user cost is even smaller. Of course, it'll *NEVER* happen. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
jlp@olyis.UUCP (Jan L. Peterson) (05/20/89)
In article <1962@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: > most anyone can connect with the regional network in their area if So, how does one find out the name of the regional network in their area? Is there a list maintained somewhere of regional networks and their coordinators? -jan- -- Jan L. Peterson UUCP: { ...!utah-cs!caeco | quad1 }!olyis!jlp Mail: Olympus Software, Inc.; 1333 E 9400 S; Sandy, UT 84093 (USA) Phone: +1 801 572 1610