mel@hogpc.UUCP (01/24/84)
A uucp domain does NOT need a person "responsible", anymore than netnews needs a person responsible. The purpose of the domain is to limit the number of sites that must be considered in chosing a unique site name, i.e. (415)vortex must be unique in the Bay area, and (617)vortex must be unique in the Boston area, but both may exist on uucp. It wouldn't take more than a day's research to find conflicts within the domain of an area code (a short query on Usenet would do it, as would asking the administrator of the nearest large node). The name server problem is a non-problem. The larger nodes in an area could easily serve to pass on traffic (as they do now) for the smaller systems around them. We don't need a centralized, militaristic, IBM type solution to the uucp domain problem. A simple, easy to use and understand, domain naming scheme needs to be defined and used. All the rest will come in the usual decentralized UNIX fashion. Mel Haas , (201)houxe!mel
rob@lzmi.UUCP (01/24/84)
[non-blank line]
Another voice in the wilderness crying out in support of
Area-codes as uucp domains.
--
{
{ {
__________ { { { {
(_)________) ==> {{{{{{{{{ ......throwing another log on the fire....
___________ Rob Coben ...!hogpc!pegasus!lzmi!rob
O (_)_________) O AT&T IS LZ - 3B225
__|_______ _______|__
(_)|_______))______|__)
=====|===============|======
T T robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding XT/DU) (01/27/84)
How would clashes caused by areas in different countries having the same
area-code? A country prefix to the code?
Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm
{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!robertglc@akgua.UUCP (01/29/84)
While I find much merit in the proposals for area-code domains,
I might raise a point...how many people in the East know the
area-code for Anaheim, Calif? There are currently 9 area codes
in California and always the possibility of one of them splitting
into two.
Those who are more familiar with the various newsgroups will
look in net.news.map for the site they wish to contact. The
area-code will usually be found there. But for the less
experienced users, or those who only know "Naperville is in
Illinois, but I don't know what part!" there is still a problem.
I don't say that using the state/provence/country name is the
best solution. And it is quite possible that with most netnews
users putting their area-code in their signatures, a responder
would soon adapt to the idea of using it for the uucp domain. I
would like to invite a bit more discussion from the standpoint of
the naive users on such a proposal. Remember, more and more of
them keep popping up on the net. Whatever domain scheme is
finally adopted needs to be simple enough in its usage for them
to grasp.
Cheers,
Lindsay
Lindsay Cleveland (...{ihnp4|mhux?|clyde}!akgua!glc)
AT&T Technologies/Bell Laboratories ... Atlanta, Ga
(404) 447-3909 ... Cornet 583-3909fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (02/06/84)
This discussion rightly belongs in net.mail, as you should know Mel, because you have been making noises like you were among those present at `the meeting' on that Tuesday night. I will attempt to move this discussion to net.mail, and I will direct my subsequent responses there. There are two discussions going on here, and we should separate them quickly, or forever be confused. Those two discussions are: 1) Splitting up our `name space' (or address space?) in such a way as to avoid overflowing the extant naming scheme and bury routing information into software, rather than people's heads. 2) Qualify for a top level domain so that we can legitimately speak to the ARPANET on better than furtive grounds. The idea, as I understand it, is to do number 2 first, and then subdivide the domain as necessary. To do #2, there are certain requirements, as stated by thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas). He said: > Date: Mon, 23-Jan-84 20:34:33 PST > > A domain must have two attributes: > 1) a person who is "responsible" for all the sites in the domain - a > domain administrator, and > 2) a name-server which knows the actual address of all sites or > subdomains. In short, ARPA wants someone they can talk to when things go wrong, and they want things such that they can mail to person@site.UUCP, and not worry about the routing. We could conceivably accomplish this with address translation at every ARPANET gateway. The problem then reduces to keeping an up to date map, and making sure that it is distributed to the gateways in a timely fashion. That, however, does not solve the problem I listed as #1 up there. Depending upon who you believe, the network will grow vigorously or explosively in the next few years, and the result will be more chaos than we're used to. We will have sites with duplicate names turning up in different parts of the country, and routing a letter from system A to system B will be a nightmare. Domains have been suggested as a solution to that problem, and I have yet to hear anyone make a better suggestion. So instead of arguing the merits of domains, let's formulate a plan of action. I submit the following: 1. Map the network (already underway) (Thanks to parsec!kolstad, cbosgd!ksh, and wjh12!sob) 2. Write routing software to handle domain addresses (underway?) 3. Write a name server for ARPA. 4. Distribute the software EVERYWHERE. 5. Qualify for the `.UUCP' top level domain. 6. NOW begin discussion for domain sub-division. Number 4 is one of the most important, because if the whole network doesn't participate, we're dead. We can provide a certain amount of backward compatibility, but we can't have two network routing schemes working side by side, particularly in light of the addressing problems. I'm trying to put off the sub-division discussion until we have the software ready to handle the problem. It does no good to discuss grandiose plans for sub-division, when the current routing systems don't handle domains at all. Erik E. Fair dual!fair@BERKELEY.ARPA {ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,amd70,zehntel,fortune,unisoft,onyx,its}!dual!fair Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California P.S. Can we avoid use of loaded phrases & rhetoric? It only serves to heat the discussion beyond rationality. (This means you, mel@houxe.UUCP)
bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (02/07/84)
Is this a private discussion, or can anyone join in? If its public, I'd like to contribute my admittedly inconsequential two-bits. dual!fair writes - >> I submit the following: >> >> 1. Map the network (already underway) >> (Thanks to parsec!kolstad, cbosgd!ksh, and wjh12!sob) >> 2. Write routing software to handle domain addresses (underway?) >> 3. Write a name server for ARPA. >> 4. Distribute the software EVERYWHERE. >> 5. Qualify for the `.UUCP' top level domain. >> 6. NOW begin discussion for domain sub-division. >> >> Number 4 is one of the most important, because if the whole network >> doesn't participate, we're dead. We can provide a certain amount of >> backward compatibility, but we can't have two network routing schemes >> working side by side, particularly in light of the addressing >> problems. I'm trying to put off the sub-division discussion until we >> have the software ready to handle the problem. It does no good to >> discuss grandiose plans for sub-division, when the current routing >> systems don't handle domains at all. I substantially agree with this. However, the "anarchy" of the current situation may make this rather difficult to enforce. With news alone, you have many sites still running A news (out of inertia?). This is for a system of relatively recent vintage. When you are speaking of UUCP software, and mailers, you open up a whole can of worms. I somehow doubt that the inertia of the UUCP network can be easily overcome. The solution is easy, though rather draconic. * Don't * make the new software backwards compatible with the old. Then make sure that enough sites, including the backbone ones, change over that us little guys will have to convert out of necessity. A pot-pourri of other considerations regarding this. 1. The routing tables/name-server on the gateway machines has to be up-to-date. Preferably, the process of verifying links could be automated. Also, the process of updating routing tables (Shades of net.adm.sites!!). 2. It would be great if some order were imposed on the UUCP network, doing away with leaf nodes. Preferably there should be at least two paths to each node (I'll let the wizards figure out the topological considerations). 3. Once, 1. and 2. have been addressed together with domains; why not have the software provide adaptive routing? Each forwarding site would require to know the routes to a relatively small number of systems/sub-domains. 4. The new software should be free, or close to it. One of the reasons our site didn't get on the CSNET was that the 5K annually probably wouldn't have been justified in terms of the number of users requiring internet mailing facilities. 5. A semi-grumble! If there is a concerted effort to map the net, its still a mystery at this site. At least 2 months ago I read on the net that we could be expecting a "Cybernet plea for information" soon. I'm still waiting! Enough for now. Just voicing my opinions. -- Binayak Banerjee {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje