TIHOR@NYUACF.BITNET (Stephen Tihor) (01/18/90)
Stephen Tihor writes: > I'll start by (once again) disagreeing with Ned's "answer" that .BITNET is the > "right" thing to emit. Please read my response more carefully. I did not say this. I said that I think that all BITNET nodes should have Internet domain-style names assigned, and that these names, once assigned, are what PMDF, and all other gateways, should emit on the Internet side. The BITNET names should be used on the BITNET (RSCS) side. I said that until such names are assigned, the only names that could be used are the ones we have now. And those are in the .BITNET top-level domain. There is no restriction against this in any Internet standard I have read. Several "authorities" on the Internet have said there is, but they reach this conclusion by stretching statements in various standards documents. I said that source routing or %-hack routing is not an acceptable alternative. I am supported by EXPLICIT STATEMENTS in several Internet standards in this. I don't have to interpret anything to reach this conclusion. I am also supported by Internet practice and the realities of the mail systems in use today. > I assert that (a) in the real world mailers shoudl be able to handle .BITNET > if it is handed to them. (b) gateways should mangle the BITNET user@host into > the local part of their internet address. I agree completely with (a). This is wishful thinking, however. Internet bigots will never support the .BITNET domain unless the NIC people change their decision in this matter. I disagree completely with (b). What a horrible idea! It makes a mockery of efficient routing. It means inventing new mechanisms to fix a non-problem. Let's fix the problem with mechanism already in place. My suggestion of giving all BITNET systems Internet names is one way of using existing mechanisms. There are probably other alternatives, and there may be better alternatives I have not thought of. > Since I am on serious drugs after oral surgery I can get away with being brief . > I very much admire Ned's work on PMDF. His reply that someone someone will > play with x%y in x%y@z so you should not use it is, perhaps, an arguement for > x.y@z. It is not an arguement for .BITNET. Once again, I'm not arguing for .BITNET. The idea of x.y@z is crazy. Once again, why invent new hacks when solutions exist that will solve the problem? > I have pushed this issue because I think we can get it fixed and that the Ixyz > (for whatever xyz is apprporate) is responsible enough to recognize the proble m > and agree with CREN as to the fix and tell the rest of us. This is a matter for the BITNET administration people. Has anyone brought it up with them? As I said before, this is not my job, and I'm not going to do it. I think registration of all BITNET hosts with Internet names is an inevitable part of BITNET II. Why can't this process be accelerated? At the very least, why not include the Internet host name as part of the BITNET host information records (it may already be in there somewhere, but I don't think so). > I don't care if we break the internet to bitnet links personally since we are > on both sides of the fence already and similarly we have no problems with > .BITNET nor with using eithe the offical INTERBIT gateway or our own private > gateway. But NYU was an early ARPANET site. We have allways had local mailer > expertise. Personally, I don't care either, since I'm in the same position. Now that our last IBM system has bitten the dust here at the Claremont Colleges (which I sorry to see, by the way, since I can no longer test things with it) we have Internet facilities on every BITNET system. We don't gateway for anyone else. For us, this problem simply does not exist. I do care somewhat as a PMDF designer. I'll reiterate again that PMDF is perfectly capable of generating the necessary source routes or %-hack addresses to "solve" this problem the way the Internet folk seem to want it solved. Some modifications will have to be made to PMDF to support use of Internet names on one side and BITNET names on the other side. I'm not going to make such changes until I have some data to work with. > I do want to see a real working and offical solution in place. SOON. I want t o > see Ned's "it just won't happen" disproved for the good of the little guys lik e > the one that started this discussion on INFO-PMDF. I'm pessimistic about political processes, and this is a political issue. It was messed up in the first place when initial decision was made not to have a top-level .BITNET domain. (Not that the Internet was wrong in making this choice -- although I think they were -- but once the choice was made some consideration should have been given to alternative solutions to the inevitable problems the decision caused.) Suggestions or threats that involve breaking the links between the networks are just plain silly -- if this is ever done I'm going to go on a long vacation while the people responsible for it are roasted alive! (If you think there aren't politically influential people that depend on such links you need a major reality check.) Ned