jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (07/05/89)
gmp@rayssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris) writes: >Just to note a case where short-circuiting uucp paths to the rightmost >domain doesn't work: > hop!abc.xyz.com!node.decnet!user Absolutely correct, it wont work. >I see these things all the time. I believe something called Ultrix >generates them. :-) If you short circuit to the rightmost domain, >then letters so addressed cannot be delivered. Isn't the ultimate >goal to provide better service? Don't blame Ultrix, blame the usual vendor supplied .cf files... I have both Wollongong supplied gateway to DECNET, and Ultrix supplied gateway to DECNET. Wollongong supplies the node.decnet and Ultrix supplies node.dnet. (This may not be a complete list, other vendors may also use those methods). As the administrator responsible for overseeing the gateway to the rest of the world from our internal network, I have attempted, and as far as I know succeeded, to excise these addresses from the mail which leaves our network and enters the outside world. >Since this is uucp we're talking about, I don't think you can say that >node.decnet or node.dnet is illegal, though I'd agree heartily that it's >ugly and disgusting. I believe this statement is wrong. I also believe that any address of the form node.transport-mechanism is wrong, including node.UUCP. However, I don't do anything active about this belief, except my best effort to insure that anything leaving my domain conforms to this requirement. Anyone dumb enough to source route through my site should succeed, but why? They can route decwrl!uunet faster than decwrl!eda!uunet 8^) >Greg Paris <gmp@ray.com> P.S. Someone in this thread asked about Paul Vixie. He's still at decwrl and vixie.sf.ca. (Sigh. Someday perhaps I too can have my own personnal budler.sj.ca) jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim domain: jim@eda.com voice = +1 408 986-9585 fax = +1 408 748-1032
barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (07/08/89)
In article <507@eda.com>, jim@eda (Jim Budler) writes: >gmp@rayssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris) writes: >>Since this is uucp we're talking about, I don't think you can say that >>node.decnet or node.dnet is illegal, though I'd agree heartily that it's >>ugly and disgusting. I don't much like it either, but when some companies have 20,000 machines on internal networks, it is not practicle to have a real domain name unless you do something equally disgusting like. machine.decnet.xyz.com > >I believe this statement is wrong. I also believe that any address of >the form node.transport-mechanism is wrong, including node.UUCP. >However, I don't do anything active about this belief, except my best >effort to insure that anything leaving my domain conforms to this >requirement. As long as there are specialized networks, you will have gateways and you will have addresses of the form xyz.com!machine.decnet!user or user%machine.decnet@xyz.com or <@xyz.com:user@machine.decnet> You will also find many systems that cannot handle 1, 2 or all three forms of the above address. p.s. We plan to use the "disgusting" form of user@machine.dnet.ge.com eventually, as soon as we get all of our gateways and name servers converted. sigh. p.p.s if you think xyz.com!machine.decnet!user is disgusting, try being postmaster of a machine with UUCP, internet, and decnet gateways and then watch people try to route mail from their VMS machine to a UUCP or BITNET site thru an internet site. And then watch people try to reply! You ain't seen nothing! :-) -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@crdgw1.ge.com> a.k.a. <barnett@[192.35.44.4]> uunet!crdgw1.ge.com!barnett barnett@crdgw1.UUCP
amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (07/10/89)
In article <1130@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: > something equally disgusting like. > > machine.decnet.xyz.com I'd argue that this is far less disgusting, since it subsumes the routing information underneath the XYZ.COM domain. How XYZ.COM administers their namespace is their business, and if they want to make life easier for themselves by advertising an MX record for *.DECNET.XYZ.COM, that's fine with me, since it's still a fully qualified domain name. This also lets people inside this subdomain mail to people on other DECnet networks by using FQDNs without going through contortions to route through gateways. Looks like a somewhat reasonable way to do things to me. Doesn't DEC do something like this with DEC.COM? -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda