Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains:549 comp.mail.uucp:5679 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!athene!pcg From: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,comp.mail.uucp,uk.misc Subject: Re: UKC and mail prices Message-ID: Date: 31 Dec 90 13:57:54 GMT References: <1533@tharr.UUCP> <1990Dec23.222645.13580@trevan.uucp> <1990Dec27.110842.6350@micromuse.co.uk> Sender: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP Organization: Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Lines: 164 Nntp-Posting-Host: teachk In-reply-to: peter@micromuse.co.uk's message of 27 Dec 90 11:08:42 GMT On 27 Dec 90 11:08:42 GMT, peter@micromuse.co.uk (Peter Galbavy) said: somebody> UKC has a monopoly so it can charge what it likes. peter> In article peter> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes: jim> False. There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from arranging jim> your own transatlantic links and paying for the calls yourself. If jim> you honestly think you can get a better, cheaper service by doing jim> it all yourself, then go ahead. I think you'll soon find that the jim> reality is somewhat different. peter> NO NO NO NO peter> Wanna bet ? I was at one point quite happy to go direct to a site peter> in the US, but I could not register a domain name because UKC peter> "was responsible for this in the UK" (sorry 'bout bad speeling). The old problem of the NRS (not "...!mcsun!ukc") controlling the 'uk' domain: there are several aspects to this argument, as it involves traffic and gateways between Janet/PSS, the Internet, and several UUCP networks. This article is going to be long, because I will try to provide a brief summary of all such aspects, even of the little known or often not well understood or misrepresented ones. This article is being crossposted to comp.mail.uucp, comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains and uk.misc, because it covers non simple issues of gatewaying between the three zones. The various aspects of the name registration problem are more or less: 1) The NRS has no relationship that I know of to "UKnet". The NRS is a government service that provides a registry of symbolic names for United Kingdom organizations that are reachable via Janet/PSS. To them the "UKnet" is probably just a nuisance, not being run by the Civil Service, the more regrettable because they run the UUCP protocols and not the official coloured books ones. Note that the NRS 'uk' domain is *purely* a coloured book thing, and does not involve any other networking standard or organization. In practice there is some odd arrangement between the two, but mostly because many sites happen to be both customers of the University of Kent and are subsidized by the JNT as well. peter> I do not object to UKC providing the gateway service, because you peter> may be able to compete either for yourself or commercially, but peter> they are also the people that maintain the maps, and so the two peter> functions of domain administration and gateway service seem to peter> generate a 'conflict of interest' (notice the quotes please) in peter> that if you want a domain name, you have to pay UKC the standing peter> charge, even if you do not use their services. 2) The UUCP site "...!mcsun!ukc" is the official *volunteer* keeper, as far as the USA UUCP people are concerned, of the UUCP maps for the British Isles (I think Eire included). As such, they *ought* to have the duty to register, in the portion they manage of the worldwide UUCP maps, any site that wants to be registered and is based in it, *even if the site is not one of their customers*, even if the site's connectivity is only with USA sites. I do not know if anybody who is not a customer of the University of Kent ever tried to submit to them a UUCP map entry. I know that in other countries in similar circumstances registration was *refused*, quite against all known USENET conventions. There are indeed on uunet *two* distinct sets of European UUCP maps, with two distinct sets of sites that collect map entries for each country. peter> What I would like to see is a body (NRS equivelant for commercial peter> sites ?) that registers names for a one time charge perhaps (and peter> a charge for any changes made, each time) - and then let all and peter> sundry provide services in and out of the UK... 3) It *ought* to be possible to be possible to register a 'gb' top level domain with the DNS top level domain registry. For some incredible fudge, the DNS contains a valid (it is registered) but illegal (it violates DNS rules) 'uk' top level domain, of which the NRS is responsible, that contains the same set of names as the NRS, with flipped domain order. In way of principle there ought to be no problem to having a parallel, purely Internet, 'gb' domain, and sites that were on both Janet/PSS and Internet could register with different names in both, like sites in EARN/BITNET or the UUCP networks already do. There is no obvious candidate for the role of registry of the 'gb' top level domain. The NRS is obviously disqualified because they are strictly Janet/PSS oriented, and even hostile to the Internet. I think that the BSI may be a more credible candidate, if at all. In other words the NRS is the name registration system for networks adopting the coloured book standards, the DNS is the one for those adopting the Internet standards, and the UUCP maps are for those adopting the UUCP protocols. The three name registration systems do interact haphazardly with each other, as none of them has provisions for gateways to other naming zones. This is the theory on name registration for Janet/PSS and for the European branch(es) of Internet and the UUCP Zone. In practice some amusing bits of politics color the issue, as far as the European branch(es) of the Internet and of the UUCP Zone are concerned, more or less as follows: A) It is possible to register non USA based Internet domains as though they were USA based. Several Canadian sites are registered under both 'ca' and 'edu'; some UK sites are registered under 'com'. Many European sites are registered under 'sublink.org'. It is not possible to register sites under 'gb' because there is nobody responsible for that domain. It is possible to register under 'uk' with the NRS even if you are not in any way connected with the UKnet or even Janet/PSS (not sure about the latter though), and in some way this will register you with the DNS as well, with a valid but illegal domain (this is starting to sound like Jesuits debating canon law...) name. B) The EUnet and the UKnet backbone (and most national backbones) will boyocott traffic between one of their customers and another of their customers, if the ultimate source/destination is not a customer _and_ is running the UUCP protocols _and_ is located in Europe. Note that, even if they they try to claim that billing is the ostensible reason, this is not because of money problems -- all traffic between two customers of the UKnet/EUnet must be paid for by the originating site. The boycott is done _purely_ to make it impossible operating a EUnet/UKnet <-> SUBlink gateway, even if the gateway site is prepared to pay for all the costs of the EUnet leg of the traffic, to deny SUBlink sites a larger connectivity. Note: the boycott applies *only* to traffic with "competing" European UUCP networks -- the EUnet/UKnet do not boycott UUCP traffic outside Europe (USENET), or non UUCP traffic within Europe (EARN), even if the other party is not a EUnet/UKnet customer (in which case the party which is a customer has to pay for both the mail it sends and that which it receives). Thus the absurdity that UUCP traffic between an European SUBlink site and an European EUnet/UKnet site *must* be routed via a gateway in another continent, usually some USENET site, because direct gatewaying between the two European UUCP networks is not allowed by EUnet/UKnet. C) So, the EUnet/UKnet backbone are not user groups in any way and will boycott any direct gateway to any other European UUCP network, thus denying sites on both networks better connectivity. They provide a commercial style service to their private customers, and the boycott is narrowly targeted only against what they perceive as potential suppliers of the same service (European UUCP mail and news forwarding). Therefore they are in a very different position from the USENET traditional UUCP volunteer sites that are regional backbones and UUCP map collection points. The latter point has not yet been well understood by most of the USENET people in the USA (or for that matter by many in Europe as well), which often therefore do not realize why independent European sites want to connect directly to them and think they are time wasters. They tell them to go to their Unix user group, which is pointless, because European Unix user groups are the source of the problem (also note that even if they are very cosy to each other, the European backbone and the user groups are not legally the same thing). Fortunately there are quite a few USENET sites that seem to understand the situation and are ready to provide, in true USENET spirit, connectivity to independent European sites, and even registration. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk