Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!schoff From: schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules Message-ID: <1991Mar25.200324.22500@uu.psi.com> Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. References: <1991Mar19.020431.28067@jpradley.jpr.com> <5060@lgnp1.ls.com> <1991Mar23.155949.20164@tygra.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 20:03:24 GMT >One thing about PSI that is a big drawback is the fact that you cannot get >an IP address with their HOST-DCS service. Each time you dial into one of >their POP's, you get assigned a temporary IP address. This is ONE of the services that we offer, other services such as CCS and SCS do not have this "limitation". >The result: No one can >TELNET/FTP to your site. It seems to be a trivial problem for them to >reprogram their routers to know what POP each of their customers is assigned >to and send any queries/connection requests to that POP when a connection is >requested to one of their customers. The worst that can happen is: NOT >RESPONDING - TIMED OUT. I'm not sure if cisco/proteon/wellfleet/nsc would agree that it is trivial to reprogram their routers; however, on-demand Internet access is not trivial either. There are questions such as (1) is "on-demand" address assignment a good thing? From looking at the PPP spec and some implementations it appears that the answer is yes. It is probably a good thing from the perspective of the Internet Address space also, right now the only granularity of long term official address assignment is 8 bits (a whole class C network number). (2) is "on-demand" client-only access to the Internet useful, (HOST-DCS)? I think the answer is yes. There appear to be 100,000's of Internet hosts which are client-only today. With Intercon/FTPSoftware/etc support POP3 et al of the standard uses (ftp/telnet/mail) are provided. (3) is there going to be changes and evolution in the future? Absolutely, the Internet, internetworking products, etc are rapidly evolving. Marty