Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site plus5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!plus5!hokey
From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: name change
Message-ID: <604@plus5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 19:48:59 EST
Article-I.D.: plus5.604
Posted: Tue Feb 19 19:48:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 07:36:06 EST
References: <484@digi-g.UUCP> <405@lsuc.UUCP> <597@plus5.UUCP> <603@plus5.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis
Lines: 75

> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 85 11:18:16 est
> From: cbosgd!mark (Mark Horton)
> To: hokey@plus5.uucp
> 
> Go ahead and publish, including this reply.
> 
> What you are proposing is really a two-level plan anyway.  You are
> suggesting backbone machines (these are really "2nd level domains") and
[I assume you mean second level domains under "your" proposal]
> that any org, no matter how small, goes into a table on at least one
> backbone machine.  The only difference between this and considering the
> orgs to have 3rd level domains (which is what will probably happen, unless
> a 2nd level domain chooses to subdivide differently) is that the 2nd level
> is hidden.  The only advantage to hiding the 2nd level is to save typing
> of about 5 characters in a mail address.

Not true; the difference is in what is *represented* by the "extra" subdomain.
Segregating (commercial) sites by geographic area makes it harder to locate
a particular site.  By making the organization the higher level domain, the
task of locating the organization is that much easier.  Furthermore, this
sort of organization will tend to route mail *through* an organization's
"domain" rather than through other organizations'.

> However, there are plenty of disadvantages.  Once you try to make the map
> seem logically flat, you'll get thousands of organizations that all appear
> equal.  The map for these orgs will be so large that it will never be up
> to date, and it will be too large to distribute very far.  (Essentially
> the same problem we have with the current map.)  So you have to assume that
> local machines don't have a very good map.  This in turn means that more mail
> will be sent to unrecognized host names, which will get routed through the
> backbone, putting a huge load on the backbone.  If you were the SA on a
> backbone machine, would you want that much mail going through your machine?
> The only hope we have of having mail be well routed is to have good maps of
> local areas and frequently used destinations on each machine.  And having
> mail be well routed is crucial, otherwise the only machines willing to be
> backbones will be commercial services that charge for each message they
> transmit.

I disagree.  If we get the netnews software elevated to the point where
permanent postings are handled, we will have no trouble automating the
routing tables.

Until the netnews software is "enhanced", we can still *drastically*
reduce the volume of mail by using short routes when replying to messages
from netnews.  I wish I could get rn to use From: instead of Path:.

So, in order to support a large number of second level domains, we need to
make it easy to maintain the maps.  I don't think this is too hard at all.
The easier we make it to maintain the maps, the more sites we shall see
who have maps, and the easier it will be to distribute the load.

With geographic domains, there is no incentive or mechanism to "improve"
routing.

> As for getting funding, I don't have a source for it.  The net is not willing
> to pay money to support UUCP.  Usenix doesn't want to get involved with
> domains.  Do you have a source in mind?

If the members of Usenix want it, they should ask for it.  If that fails,
what about the members of /usr/group?

We are members of both; I suspect if enough members of either organization
ask for it..

> Joe Kelsey at Fluke has also expressed an interest in a different
> organization, along the EDU, COM, etc lines.  You might be interested in
> working with him to create a reasonably concrete proposal, if you two agree
> on how it should be done.
> 
> 	Mark

Hi Joe!  What do you think?
-- 
Hokey           ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey
		  314-725-9492