Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!david
From: david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up
Message-ID: <2027@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 23:49:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: ukma.2027
Posted: Mon Aug  5 23:49:03 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 12:26:48 EDT
References: <1383@peora.UUCP> <9546@ucbvax.ARPA> <1422@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover)
Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 40

In article <1422@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
>UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU and UCBVAX.CSNET, for example.  They are addresses for
>separate networks; but at the user interface, they come together, and you
>have this problem.

No.  You make a common mistake here.  It's a mistake of visualization.
One that I don't have clearly in my mind either.

The problem is that the first implementation of domaining had the 
domains be equivalent to networks.  But you can't do this because
(as you said) machines exist on more than one network.  (We're already
on two, uucp and bitnet, hopefully soon we'll be on csnet, fr'instance.)

The current implementation of domains (UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU) has them
completely seperate from the underlying networks.  The host tables
have entries explaining which network to use to get to site X.  And
so forth.  So, there is ONLY ucbvax.berkeley.edu.  ucbvax.arpa
and ucbvax.bitnet and ucbvax.everything.else no longer exist
(except as names kept around till people fix things up to look right).



As for the rest of your points.    I see what you're saying.  It does
look like somebody could gain control of the net and charge fees.
In one sense, maybe that would be the best way to handle the explosion
of users.  (Our budget could certainly use some capital infusion).
But, take a look at the map files sometime.  Sure AT&T has half
the map.  (You *were* implying that AT&T might want to grab the net
weren't you?  Don't they have it already?)  But notice that a LOT of
traffic is handled by non AT&T sites.  gatech, ucb, sdcsvax, etc.
There's enough handled by extraneous people that any one party
would have a hard time gaining this control you warn against.


I'd like to hear more though.
-- 
--- David Herron
--- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA
--- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david
---        {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!david