Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!nuug!ifi!enag From: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains Subject: Re: CS top-level domain and its impact on the UK? Message-ID: <1990Jul23.065901.8741@ifi.uio.no> Date: 23 Jul 90 06:59:01 GMT References: <9007101320.AA03269@dockside.mitre.org> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 113 In-Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk's message of 22 Jul 90 16:24:54 GMT Originator: enag@slembe.ifi.uio.no I'm not entirely certain how happy I am about things in the UK in general, but when we get major confusion from that island, it bugs me. A few points, since I don't have time to tackle all the confusion in Piercarlo Grandi's article. In article , pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > The problem that many USA and GB alike people seem to constantly > forget is that JANET and PSS ar *not* on the Internet in any sense > of the world. "word", presumably. You are not connected to the Internet proper with Internet (IP-level) addresses. You are, however, reachable from the Internet through relevant gateways. This means that these gateway are on the Internet and have to follow Internet rules on one side and whatever local conventions you have on the other side. > The fact that in the Internet the top level domain country code is GB > for the United Kingdom It's my understanding of the issue that the national top level domain is "UK" for the United Kingdom. ISO 3166, which is the basis for top level domain names in the Internet, specifies "GB". It's also my understanding that it was the then administrators of NRS or whatever who decided to implement their own hack with respect to domain names, and ignore ISO 3166. > When I see discussions by people quoting RFCs and wishing that > everybody conform to them, e.g. register in the DNS, etc..., they seem > to constantly forget that the Internet is *one* net, even if the > largest. If you want to talk to or with the Internet, follow Internet rules. It's as simple as that. If you continue to insist that you should be allowed to follow whatever rules you fancy on the Internet, you will have to be taken off the net, either by force from the Internet side, or by default, since you won't be reachable. The DNS registration is to ensure that we can talk to you. There's nothing wrong in adver- tising one gateway to the entire United Kingdom and let the gateways take care of addressing failures, but it will create a hell of a demand on the gateways, and cause large amounts of traffic which could be avoided by better registration. > If the people on the Internet harbor the delusion that everybody must > respect the relevant RFCs, or else, they will lose connectivity with not > just the UUCP world, but also the UK, BITNET, and many others. I believe you harbor the delusion that Internet RFCs are relevant off the Internet. This is hardly the Internet's fault. Internet RFCs are very relevant _on_ the Internet. People who think otherwise will lose connectivity. Personally, I don't think it would such a tragic loss to lose connectivity with the UK, but that's beside the point. > The next step in the evolution of the Internet is to recognize that > there are many Internets, and not only you want to link together many > networks running the same homogenous set of protocols and conventions, > but also heterogenous ones, e.g. at least: [list deleted] This is largely achieved by having gateways that accept and follow the rules of both the networks they're on. You seem to think that the Internet should accept all sorts of standards, and have failed to grasp the idea of a gateway. This is not the Internet's fault, either. There is one Internet. There are other interoperating networks, which are not called "the Internet". Your confusion may be based on this assumption, as well. > On the other hand I wish that we all belonged to the Internet. I'd > much have preferred an XNS based, rather than a TCP/IP based, > Internet, but alas -- this is an impossible dream. You are free to attempt to get acceptance for a system of inter- connected XNS based networks any time. Those of us who have worked with IP and TCP at the detail level find that they form some of the very best in networking protocols available. Compared to the OSI stuff, well, let's not compare it to the OSI stuff. > What I sure do not want to see, and I [seem] not to be alone as > apparently many sites are migrating as quickly away from it as they > can, is an ISO/GOSIP based Internet taking shape -- things like > Janet (i.e. its protocols) are a relic of the past. Still, the > practical point is that the Internet is most convenient, yet it is > not the only internet around. This doesn't scan well. Are you saying that many sites are migrating as quickly away from ISO/GOSIP networks as they can? I wasn't aware of any ISO/GOSIP networks that any site could migrate away from to begin with, and it seems to me that this ISO/GOSIP stuff is being mi- grated _to_ by people who want to win contracts with the GOSIP folks. I know I would be very happy to be wrong, but the trade rags haven't made me feel that way for a long time. (In fact, I got unhappy with most trade rags when the IBM PC caught on, but that's another story.) The technical issues in this discussion are based on an annoying in- sistence upon misunderstanding the design of the Internet. The Inter- net side has been very accomodating, as I see it, and gets nothing but flak from people varying from slightly to extremely lacking in know- ledge about it. The Internet is not a giant commercial undertaking with gobs of government support, either, like certain other _proposed_ networks and network technologies. However, it has done things right, from the start or through informed experimentation. The results are truly astounding. I can't say the same about the United Kingdom way of doing things, and this silly both-ways addressing problem is but one of the buggy things that proves that it's begging for a cleanup. I think I could do it for as little as a hundred million pound sterling, and less operating costs after cutover. Give me three years, and you'll have Internet all over the United Kingdom. Any takers? :-) -- [Erik Naggum] +47-256-7822