w-tedt@microsoft.UUCP (Ted Timar) (10/05/88)
After reading this topic for the past few years(?), I have come to a few conclusions. What follows would be very difficult to implement because of the plethora of mailers in the world that already fail to follow these rules, but, with a lot of effort, might be used to simplify mail routing, and reduce the level of conflict. The following needs the following assumption: The maps are correct. They may not be complete. The major problem with the assumption is that even if everyone did report all changes (which they don't), propagation delays would still invalidate the maps. 1) All published links should connect pairs of REGISTERED (in the maps) sites. Links to sites which are not in the maps should not be published. This could be implemented using a combination of work from uucp sites and the 'uucp mapping project'. 2) If (1) were true, sites which insisted on rerouting could: Scan the path, from left to right, along published links, as far as possible. The last site found in this way is the furthest site that could be rerouted to. We could be sure that we know, uniquely, which site it is. This allows unpublished links (which would not be tampered with). 3) Also for rerouting, it should be legal to reroute as far as any fully qualified domain name. We can be sure that we know, uniquely, which site it is. 4) ".uucp" should be made into an OFFICIAL (registered) domain name, meaning "AS LISTED IN THE UUCP MAPS". Only registered sites should use the .uucp domain. 5) if (4) were true, (3) would apply to .uucp. -- These are my ideas, and my opinions. They are in no way representative of the opinions of my employers. Comments are welcome. Please don't post flames. If you must flame, send them by mail. If necessary, if will summarize responses. Ted Timar uunet!microsoft.uucp!w-tedt
jordan@zooks.ads.com (Jordan Hayes) (10/06/88)
Ted Timar <w-tedt@microsoft.UUCP> writes:
".uucp" should be made into an OFFICIAL (registered) domain
name, meaning "AS LISTED IN THE UUCP MAPS". Only registered
sites should use the .uucp domain.
"Let's all take three steps backward!!!"
waiting for microsoft.com,
/jordanchip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (10/07/88)
According to w-tedt@microsoft.UUCP (Ted Timar): >The following needs the following assumption: > The maps are correct. They may not be complete. They are not correct, and they will never be correct. Accurate maps are a fantasy. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers.
vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (10/07/88)
In article <137@microsoft.UUCP> w-tedt@microsoft.UUCP (Ted Timar) writes:
# 3) Also for rerouting, it should be legal to reroute as far as any fully
# qualified domain name. We can be sure that we know, uniquely, which
# site it is.
I once thought so. I am even willing to concede the point if it will buy me
a concession from the rerouting gang.
But consider: if my MTA gets something to <foo!bar.baz.com!person> and decides
to find a route to "foo.bar.com" and reroute, and "foo" turns out through an
anomoly in the map data not to be the official fastest way there although it
happens to be the unofficial fastest way there from here right at this moment,
the reroute result could very well be <blat!barf!retch!puke!bar.baz.com!person>
which is not much of a win over the original <foo!bar.baz.com!person>.
You can't tell me to compare the costs, since I don't know what the originator
of the message thought the cost was, or if it was even pathalias-based. It
may not have been.
Any rerouter has to know how to stay out of the way of human-generated routes.
--
Paul Vixie
Work: vixie@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!vixie +1 415 853 6600
Play: paul@vixie.sf.ca.us vixie!paul +1 415 864 7013