Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:6142 news.admin:12858 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,news.admin Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules Message-ID: <73552093@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 20 Mar 91 09:29:55 GMT Article-I.D.: bfmny0.73552093 References: <1991Mar19.020431.28067@jpradley.jpr.com> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Followup-To: comp.mail.uucp Lines: 21 In article peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >The basic problem is that PSInet and the NIC have different requirements: >PSInet is selling service to a "single site", and is regarding a single >site as either (a) a single location, or (b) a single machine. They need >to clarify this point (one hopes that they mean a single site, since >there are over 40 machines on the premises at "ferranti.com"), and remove >the confusing language about domains. Domains are an administrative >convention not necessarily related to sites. If PSI refuses to support true RFC1034 domains, they should not falsely register cut-rate leaf sites with the NIC as full domains. It is ludicrous to go ahead and post a wildcard record, then browbeat the customer for having the audacity to use it. The irony is that by aggressively segregating traffic to these cut-rate leaf sites, PSI not only ensures maximum wastage of its own disk and telecommunications resources per users served (thus shoving the population/performance dropoff point as far forward as possible), but also keeps the alternative option -- geographically proximate sites banding together to share the costs of a nonrestrictive joint feed from some other supplier -- perpetually attractive.