Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!alberta!ncc!lyndon From: lyndon@ncc.UUCP Newsgroups: can.general Subject: Re: .bc.ca domain park Message-ID: <75@ncc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 19-Sep-87 05:51:57 EDT Article-I.D.: ncc.75 Posted: Sat Sep 19 05:51:57 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 08:08:33 EDT References: <1341@van-bc.UUCP> Distribution: can Organization: Nexus Computing Corp. Lines: 119 Keywords: domains canada Summary: It's about time! In article <1341@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > > I recently sent some mail to Rick Adams at UUNET asking about setting up a > domain park and complained about the $150/year charge, lack of action up > here about .ca, etc. [ ... ] > This is his reply. > >> There's no reason to pay the uucp project the $150 to register. I'll register > > a domain for you. Nice guy? This is a *bad* precedent... > > Why not van.bc.ca? I would pass off everything in bc.ca to you to handle. > > You could be the registrar for all of british columbia until someone > > else is willing to do it. Have you talked to ubc about it? What does ubc have to do with this (see later)? > > A mi.us (michigan usa) domain is forming right now that is essentially > > a park. There's no reason you couldn't do somethign similar. You should > > at least ask UBC if they want to get involved. See above (and later). > Is there any reason NOT to just do as he suggests. The .cdn and netnorth > people certainly don't have anymore right to organize the .ca domain than > you or me or anyone else. They should not have any more or less input than the rest of us, but... >They've had a year to get it going. I've been bugging the ean people since last > November to get things moving. I've been bugging the EAN people for _at least_ the same amount of time just for *information* about what's happening... > I've even asked just to allow me to use a 2nd > level domain name "officially" and I would arrange for all forwarding etc > via UUNET, but have been told that they can't do that, and that they were to > busy to get something organized (this was in June, havn't heard anything > from them since). You might talk to one of the "official" .CA gateways about this. Recent UUCP maps indicate UBC is one of the "official" gateways (for this non- existant domain). > Any comments. Flames welcome, it at least shows there's some interested > people out there. As I've said before, I'm less interested in the fine > details of how second level domains should be organized (there is no clear > rationale reason to use or NOT to use any of the methods so far suggested, > pick one and use it), as to just getting going. The UBC crowd has done some incredible things with X.400 and their EAN system. As a result of all of this they have become sidetracked from the important issue of setting up a domain for Canada... (something they implicitly have undertaken by their actions over the last year). > From a practical point of view, I would like to set up a domain for myself > so that I can more effectively block mail for eastern canada being routed > from UUNET via me to ubc-vision. The domain may not help here. Routing all this mail is more of a side effect of your MAP entry. I don't understand why uunet marks _everything_ it talks to as a DEMAND entry. This is definately _not_ the case in most situations. If _you_ are paying _them_ money for your traffic you should have some say in how they rate the connection. Then again, you probably _want_ _your_ mail to come in via uunet... So now you have to mark your downstream sites at a "lower" effective throughput in the maps to divert mail to them via less expensive links... (This goes on and on and on). [ ... ] > Why these came to here to get forwarded is anyones guess. (Who is udem.cdn > anyway?). No, it's pathalias' guess. (and it's U de Montreal) > But UUNET can apparently re-route them appropriately, without rerouting > legitimate mail if we have a better "domain". So for example if we were > to become .van.bc.ca all mail to ..!van-bc!.. and bc.ca would be rerouted, > (probably via ubc-vision). Mail to ...van.bc.ca would arrive safe and > sound directly here. Again, all of this depends on how your map entry is set up. 'van-bc' does NOT have to appear anywhere, as long as people know '.van.bc.ca' (as a domain) is reachable via 'uunet'. > We need .ca *NOW* !!!! Not next year. We needed it last year. No slight meant here, but the UBC/EAN people have their own mailer and domain to work with. The rest of us (*I* think) are getting tired of waiting for them to pass judgement on what's good for the rest of us. The UUCP community in this country can work with the other (physical) networks to setup the .CA damain NOW, without impacting the .CDN network in a negative way - gateways have worked before and will work again. (God help me, but 'ncc' would become a gateway if that's what it takes) The biggest issue we must deal with currently is how to interface with the Internet. Any Canadian backbone site *must* have good (X.25?) Internet connections for forwarding mail. How we spread out from the "backbone" has yet to be resolved. TCNET is an interesting concept, but I think it will only work if it's implemented similar to the European or Australian networks - ie. the user pays for the traffic. This could be via X.25, or via "toll-free" 800 lines (charged back at the discounted rates). In many cases, the 800 lines will be much cheaper than dedicated Datapac service. In any event, the charges could be spread back through the downstream sitees, resulting in an fair pricing scheme for everyone. Hopefully, this would also encourage sites to take advantage of NNTP and Ihave/Sendme in the Bnews software distribution to cut down on the amount of traffic currently being moved over USENET. Yes, I TOO am tired of waiting for CDNNet to dictate what is "good for me." Let's get serious about getting .CA HAPPENING NOW! --lyndon