Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!think!kulla!barmar
From: barmar@kulla (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: MX-registration vs %-hack (was Re: New Host-Requirement RFCs)
Message-ID: <31198@news.Think.COM>
Date: 28 Oct 89 21:05:45 GMT
References: <8910201839.AA29376@arcturus.mitre.org> <1989Oct23.173855.1370@utzoo.uucp> <KARL.89Oct24124105@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> <7696@ditmela.oz> <31038@news.Think.COM> <PCG.89Oct27134552@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 28

In article <PCG.89Oct27134552@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk] pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
]In article <31038@news.Think.COM] barmar@kulla (Barry Margolin) writes:
]   This means that users must learn a new gateway,
]   and mailing lists all over the place have to be updated.  The domain system
]   simply requires updating the database, and users never notice.
]
]Ahhhhh. Another difference of point of view. You are assuming
]there is a benevolent entity that automagically updates in real
]time (or close enough) the naming and routing distributed
]databases. This does not happen in the real world, *even* on the
]Internet (where it is close enough though). Lazy or untrained
]system administrators, mistakes, etc...

Oh, and who is the benevolent entity that fixes all the explicit routes in
mailing lists, not to mention the ones in people's heads?

My assumption is that the MX information is stored in fewer places, so
fewer benevolent entities need be involved.  It's true that if a major
forwarder, such as uunet, goes away the necessary updates are extensive in
both cases, but I think they're orders of magnitudes more extensive when
explicit routes are involved.  When a fringe forwarder goes away it only
affects a small portion of the domain database, but the affected hosts may
be referenced in files on many other hosts.

Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar