mo@seismo.UUCP (01/28/84)
The current proposal to use telephone area codes in uucp host addresses is a reasonable idea, assuming we deal with the North American chauvanism by including country codes or some other thing. However, calling this "domains" is probably incorrect; it is most-likely an example of what is generally called "area addressing" or "sub-area routing." While it is easy to see that "Domains" are related and similar, that word already has very specific meanings in a larger context and I suggest we not overload it or further blurr its meaning. The difference between domains and area addressing lies in the notion that domains are, in general, distinct universes, either because of the mail protocols used and/or because of administrative partitions. Domains are the basis whereby a small number of distinct entities can agree to interconnect mail universes with only a very few people directly involved. I would suggest that Usenet and the UUCP network on which it is based want to present a single domain to the rest of the mail world if interconnectivity is to be fostered. On to area addressing: the idea is simple, like the one proposed. (The name "area code" did not come from nowhere, nor did the name "area addressing.") If the namespace of the network is so large that maintaining routing information everywhere is onerous (especially like in implictly or explictly source-routed networks), the notion is to adopt a heirarchical partitioning of the address: an area address, and an address within the area. Then hosts only have to deal with two cases: (1) direct destination addressing and routing for destination addresses within its area, and (2) knowing how to forward traffic for areas other than its own. If that this point you ask "How is this different from domains?" I have to answer "Technically, very little. Politically, a great deal." So, I support using a pre-existing metric for adding area addressing to UUCP host names, and the telephonic country and area codes are well-established choices. They are even in-line with CCITT guidelines!! But I also strongly suggest abandoning the use of the word "domain" except in very explicit contexts and making such an addressing decision an UUCP network internal matter. Yours for more reliable mail, -Mike O'Dell
jhh@ihldt.UUCP (01/31/84)
It is questionable whether telephonic codes are appropriate for data networking. CCITT, in Recommendation X.121, has specified Data Country Codes (DCC) for each nation. For example, the United States has DCC of 310, the Netherlands has 204, the U.K. has 234, and Canada has 302. The number is further broken up as a 4 digit Data Network Identifier Code for nations with more than 1 data network. In the case of numbers referenced relative to the public telephone network, the number is 9 + Telephone Country Code + National Telephone Number. I suspect that DCCs will be more important than POTS numbers in the not-too-distant future. Something that locks us into a numbering plan that will superceeded should be avoided. John Haller AT&T Bell Laboratories