brandon@tdi2.UUCP (03/04/87)
I'm going to try to suggest a reasonable UUCP domain scheme. However, first to correct a misconception: An earlier posting contained a complaint about UUCP domains, and used the site "hplabs.HP.COM" as an example. THIS SITE IS NOT A UUCP DOMAIN SITE, IT IS AN ARPA INTERNET DOMAIN SITE. There's a big difference: the Internet was set up for domains to begin with, so the map from everyone in one large ARPA domain to smaller subdomains COM, HP.COM is easy. UUCP is not domainized. Most UUCP mailers don't even recognize user@site.UUCP, much less static-route it, much less *dynamic* route it. And an easy solution doesn't exist, unless the FSF wants to release GNU Mail or I can get UA-Mail finished. --And even then, people have to install it. Ha! IF we can get past that fundamental barrier, or convince AT&T to provide a domainized mailer, we can get started: The UUCP domain should be split up into regions; each region has one or more ``primary'' sites which is known to the regional ``primary'' sites of other systems. Each site then can be a subdomain, to subdivide the high-level domain. Each of these may then have sites defining subdomains, etc. Example, using states as regions: REGION: Ohio -> OH Primary sites: cbatt (Columbus) -> CBATT.OH cwruecmp (Cleveland) -> CWRU.OH Secondary sites: ncoast (Cleveland) -> NC.CWRU.OH Ncoast is a news feed for many minor sites in the area. hal (Cleveland) -> HAL.CWRU.OH Hal is Case Western's news machine; might want to hide this internally as part of CWRU.OH. cbosgd (Columbus) -> CBOSGD.CBATT.OH Cbosgd is apparently retired from the backbone, so a secondary status is probably applicable. On the lowest level, machine addresses in the domainized form: tdi2.NC.CWRU.OH cbosgd.CBOSGD.CWRU.OH (i.e. cbosgd as both machine and domain) sys1.NC.CWRU.OH (really ..ncoast!peng!homer!sys1) Each low-level site keeps a map of the sites it talks to and sends the map to the higher-level site; thus, the hard path collection is broken into manage- able pieces. Higher-level sites then integrate the maps they receive. High-level sites DO NOT HAVE TO CONNECT DIRECTLY: a slower but cheaper path can be used. Thus, the OH domain masters can talk to the IN domain masters via smaller systems, but the externally-visible path includes only the large sites. Note that this can be treated as a backbone-type setup, but it can be split into smaller chunks to hold down the load on a backbone. Nothing precludes having a site that is only a "path server" for many smaller sites, so that you can have 30 machines comprising the top level of the OH domain, but are visible only as the OH domain with the "path server" providing path infor- mation as to which of the 30 should get the mail for which lower-level domain. (NOT site -- domain. The mythical machine oh-server doesn't have to know about sys1, just about the CWRU subdomain. Or the CLE subdomain, if that's how OH gets divided up.) from x.BAR.FOO.IN to sys1.NC.CLE.OH -> sys1!...!ncoast!...!cwruecmp!...!oh-serve!...!in-serve!...!foo!...!bar!...!x end full full server server full full end ANY of these sites may be just a "path server" rather than a full forwarding site. Of course, the basic idea has to be fleshed out, etc. The path server mechanism, however, should allow automatic sending of mail via the "best way" rather than the specified domain route. Sort of a reduced-scale pathalias for domains/subdomains only; each subdomain host can keep a pathalias-style database for leaf sites *directly attached to it* and subdomains of the domain it serves, ONLY. Exported information is a path line between domains (full to full) or path lines to internal distribution sites (path server sites). I'd like to discuss this *admittedly unclear* idea, try to define it better, come up with ways to implement it, etc., remembering the two goals are to (1) make site addresses manageable via domain/subdomain specification rather than full UUCP paths, and (2) keeping the master domain servers from being swamped as a "normal" UUCP domain/subdomain setup would cause. (For those still confused about path servers: path servers ~ HIDDENNET.) ++Brandon -- ``for is he not of the Children of Luthien? Never shall that line fail, though the years may lengthen beyond count.'' --J. R. R. Tolkien Brandon S. Allbery UUCP: cbatt!cwruecmp!ncoast!tdi2!brandon Tridelta Industries, Inc. CSNET: ncoast!allbery@Case 7350 Corporate Blvd. INTERNET: ncoast!allbery%Case.CSNET@relay.CS.NET Mentor, Ohio 44060 PHONE: +1 216 255 1080 (home) +1 216 974 9210
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (03/05/87)
This whole issue was hashed out pretty completely years ago. At one time there were proposals on the table that looked a lot like what you describe. The basic problems with this proposal are as follows: (1) It involves the creation of a bunch of new top level domains such as OH, specicially for UUCP. The NIC wouldn't go for that, and they control the root registry. (OH.US would be possible, however, but it would have to be shared with other networks.) (2) It's specific to UUCP. One of the major features of domains is that a host or organization can be on more than one network, and have the same address no matter what network the sender is on. Sort of like having the same phone number no matter which long distance carriers you use. This makes it very important to be consistent with what the rest of the world is doing. (3) It's geographic. While geographic domains are appealing at first glance, they turn out to be inappropriate for two reasons: real network topology isn't geographic, it's a question of who has the best UUCP links. Also, there are many organizations that have more than one location. It's messy to have to be ATT.NJ and ATT.OH and ATT.IL and ... The emphasis has instead been on organizationally structured domains. A year ago representatives of major US networks (ARPA, CSNET, BITNET, and UUCP) sat down and hashed this out. We came up with an agreement to share the COM, EDU, GOV, MIL, ORG, and NET domains, in order to provide a common addressing space. This has been in place and working for several months now. Thus, .COM is not an ARPA domain, it's a domain of companies, run by the NIC, and shared among these 4 networks. HP.COM is a domain registered on the ARPA side, and is not registered with UUCP (although they could easily do so if they wished.) At the highest level, it doesn't matter what network they are on, mail to user@host.HP.COM gets routed to the appropriate network (ARPA in their case) and delivered appropriately, assuming it's working properly on the ARPA side. Public domain software for UUCP to handle domains has been available for several months. Both smail and uumail can do this. They have been posted to mod.sources and can be found in the mod.sources archive. Mark Horton
jordan@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (03/06/87)
Brandon Allbery <brandon@tdi2.UUCP> writes:
An earlier posting contained a complaint about UUCP domains,
and used the site "hplabs.HP.COM" as an example. THIS SITE IS
NOT A UUCP DOMAIN SITE, IT IS AN ARPA INTERNET DOMAIN SITE.
There's a big difference: the Internet was set up for domains
to begin with, so the map from everyone in one large ARPA
domain to smaller subdomains COM, HP.COM is easy.
Ahem. The domain system has nothing to do whatsoever with the
underlying transport medium. It is a specification of naming labels,
and no more. There is no "UUCP domain" and there is no "ARPA Internet
domain" ...
The UUCP domain should be split up into regions; each region
has one or more ``primary'' sites which is known to the
regional ``primary'' sites of other systems.
I think you should go back and read the last 3 years of net.mail to
find out what's wrong with this statement (hint: domain names do not
specify geography or routing) ... the structure of the network simply
does not provide for mechanisms like those you propose. Links
generally (except in largely populated areas) don't follow geographic
logic.
I am, however, convinced that there can be a way to implement dynamic
routing in a slow transport medium ("slow" == "slow enough that the
expense of using the transport medium itself for regular propagation of
routing information is prohibitive").
/jordanlear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) (03/06/87)
Jordan,
With UUCP I believe domains must be geographically oriented! Suppose
you follow use some manner for domains other then Geographic. Is it
then possible that one could call across the country to get an MF
record for one's neighbor? For the internet, the cost is obviously
much cheaper (although there is still a cost) - but what if you want
to mail a neighbor whose root domain is 3000 miles away? Or are does
one rely upon the DDN for all one's mail transport - I think I'll go
back to USMail ;-)
No. It seems to me that there should be domains added to the current
system to indicate geographic location - ie interface .OH or .CA or
.NJ with .EDU, .ARPA, .COM, .etc... Am I missing something?
By the way I consider both UUCP and ARPA to be root level domain
names. Is this incorrect? (UUCP, of course, can only have MF
records).
Regards,
...eliot
--
[lear@rutgers.rutgers.edu]
[{harvard|pyrnj|seismo|ihnp4}!rutgers!lear]pdb@sei.cmu.edu (Patrick Barron) (03/06/87)
In article <313@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes: >By the way I consider both UUCP and ARPA to be root level domain >names. Is this incorrect? (UUCP, of course, can only have MF >records). There is no UUCP top level domain. The ARPA domain was a temporary hack that will officially go away at the end of this month. --Pat.
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (03/08/87)
In article <313@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes: >With UUCP I believe domains must be geographically oriented! Suppose >you follow use some manner for domains other then Geographic. Is it >then possible that one could call across the country to get an MF >record for one's neighbor? Who says you need to call another site to find out about your neighbors? You already know who your neighbors are. If you're UUCP only, you don't deal with MF records anyway; you must send the article to one of your neighbors, and that's the only phone call you make. >No. It seems to me that there should be domains added to the current >system to indicate geographic location - ie interface .OH or .CA or >.NJ with .EDU, .ARPA, .COM, .etc... Am I missing something? Yes. First, many companies have leased lines in place -- essentially free links over long distances. Second, phone cost is not proportional to distance; it costs less than twice as much per minute to call Washington, DC from San Jose, CA than it does to call Berkeley. It costs MORE to call Los Angeles from San Jose than it does to call Washington, DC! So the .CA domain would send my phone bills UP! (Let's hear it for California's Public Utilities Commission! 8 miles is a long distance call.). >By the way I consider both UUCP and ARPA to be root level domain >names. Is this incorrect? (UUCP, of course, can only have MF >records). It's wrong. UUCP and ARPA are "zones". The host bilbo.shire.myschool.edu might be on CSNET, UUCP, ARPA, or on several networks. -- - Joe Buck {hplabs,ihnp4,sun,ames}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck seismo!epiwrl!epimass!jbuck {pesnta,tymix,apple}!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California
pdb@sei.cmu.edu (Patrick Barron) (03/09/87)
In article <313@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes: >With UUCP I believe domains must be geographically oriented! Suppose >you follow use some manner for domains other then Geographic. Is it >then possible that one could call across the country to get an MF >record for one's neighbor? >... >By the way I consider both UUCP and ARPA to be root level domain >names. Is this incorrect? (UUCP, of course, can only have MF >records). Just a technical point: There are no such things as MF or MD records any longer. They've been replaced by MX records. --Pat.
brandon@tdi2.UUCP (03/13/87)
Quoted from <641@aw.sei.cmu.edu.sei.cmu.edu> ["Re: UUCP domains (and a few misunderstandings)"], by pdb@sei.cmu.edu (Patrick Barron)... +--------------- | In article <313@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes: | >With UUCP I believe domains must be geographically oriented! Suppose | >you follow use some manner for domains other then Geographic. Is it | >then possible that one could call across the country to get an MF | >record for one's neighbor? +--------------- Actually, geographically-oriented UUCP domains WON'T work. As an example: ncoast (in Ohio) is a mail and news feed for a site in Pennsylvania, and soon will be one for a site in California (!). MAJOR feed, not just a hookup to speed things up or to grab certain files. This complicates things enormously. ++Brandon -- ``for is he not of the Children of Luthien? Never shall that line fail, though the years may lengthen beyond count.'' --J. R. R. Tolkien Brandon S. Allbery UUCP: cbatt!cwruecmp!ncoast!tdi2!brandon Tridelta Industries, Inc. CSNET: ncoast!allbery@Case 7350 Corporate Blvd. INTERNET: ncoast!allbery%Case.CSNET@relay.CS.NET Mentor, Ohio 44060 PHONE: +1 216 255 1080 (home) +1 216 974 9210