Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills
From: Mills@UDEL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  A fuzzy proposal
Message-ID: <8706191600.a006205@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Date: Fri, 19-Jun-87 16:00:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: Huey.8706191600.a006205
Posted: Fri Jun 19 16:00:42 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jun-87 04:03:59 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 43

Bob and Annette,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. There are merits in your scheme that
would indeed by appropriate in some cases; however, I have reservations.
First, your suggestion on using synthetic meta-entities (!?) would
be appropriate for the half-gateway model, where the halves are separated
by a featureless transmission line or tunnel. I have no problem with that
and would support your suggestion over mine when such is the case.

My problem is the more general one. In addition to the cases I presented,
consider one even more bizarre. In some of the NSFNET swamps there are
multi-homed fuzzballs which respond to both local-net and ARPANET (!)
addresses. It's all done with logical tunneling, which is possible
because the routing algorithm can be configured for arbitrary address
ranges. Thus, in point of real fact, udel1.udel.edu appears as directly
connected to nets 128.4, 192.5.39 and 10. If I indicate the real truth
HOSTS.TXT would be cluttered up with a lot of confusing and strange
entries which, even if looking straightforward, would be actual lies.

Returning to our example case with linkabit-gw and swamprat, which may
be less controversial and move common than the above, I don't see how
the connectivity could be accurately recorded with your scheme unless
every intervening local-net node were recorded. In my last example I
wanted to hide the internals of the swamp, but offered to take responsibility
for the delivery of traffic to three nets, some of which are also connected
via other gateways. You take exception on the basis that HOSTS.TXT should
accurately reflect physical connectivity, not necessarily logical
connectivity.

I take the strongest objection. If in my autonomous system I refuse to
publish every detail that, in my opinion, policy or prescriptive fiat
is private and not to be revealed, then thus it verily be so. There is
a whole lot of precedent in this policy, not only in the common-carrier
community, but in many places in the Internet community as well. If the
price to be paid to carry third-party traffic between two POPs is to
reveal all the switches in between, then HOSTS.TXT is wholly inadequate
and inappropriate.

I submit there is room for both your scheme and mine. As you see, it is
not possible for me to accurately reflect the connectivity of the cases
I submit in either the existing HOSTS.TXT or your scheme.

Dave