Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!coherent!dplatt From: dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) Newsgroups: news.config Subject: Re: Unregistered-but-referenced sites (was Re: deleted UUCP sites) Message-ID: <43588@improper.coherent.com> Date: 4 Jan 90 02:17:41 GMT References: <4195@convex.UUCP> <30273@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com> <43496@improper.coherent.com> <1990Jan3.164811.5457@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Reply-To: dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) Distribution: news Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA Lines: 91 In article <1990Jan3.164811.5457@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > The new "ilmss", however, can't tell that their choice of name is ALREADY > TAKEN, since you would have mcdchg delete the declaration from their map > entry! I guess this is where we disagree, Karl. As I see it, according to the "rules of the game", the name "ilmss" is NOT ALREADY TAKEN. The site which used to use it, has lost its moral right assert that it is "ilmss", because they decided to drop their map entry. > Is it? Wait a second. What about the other side of the coin, to whit: > > Site "ilmss" doesn't register EXCEPT with mcdchg -- and mcdchg keeps > that link "private". Now, mail gets to mcdchg for "ilmss" without > a complete source-route (ie: it's received as "user@ilmss"). Let's > say someone else has taken the name and REGISTERED it. Now where > does the mail go? > > You get a star if you say "to the machine just off mcdchg". Which > is the wrong routing. That's correct. > Worse yet, there is no way to know that this > is about to or has happened, since you can't tell that "ilmss" is > declared anywhere until AFTER you start losing mail! > > IF mcdchg declares the link, then anyone wanting to use the name > "ilmss" can check the routing tables and quickly see that the name > is already taken somewhere else. If mcdchg does NOT declare the > link, there is no way to prevent the problem from occuring! I guess I disagree, once again. There are ways: register as an individual site, or live within a registered domain. > Your suggestion makes it impossible for me to verify that a name is > available. If people have "private" connections to sites which aren't in > the maps, mail WILL fall into a black hole sooner than later. Internet > (or re-routing) sites are the worst, of course, since if they take on a > "undeclared" connection you can virtually guarantee that mail will > soon disappear or get misrouted. Again, I acknowledge your point of view, but I disagree. To me, an "available" name is one which nobody has put "dibs" on, using one of the available registration mechanisms. That's why those mechanisms were developed, and why the Net Deities "strongly encourage" all sites to register. > In short, I agree with Ron -- people should be able to declare connections > to sites which aren't in the maps, and if they do it SHOULD be honored -- > it should reserve the name which is declared (preventing that site name > from being registered later by anyone else.) This way a little common sense > before you accept a site (and show a connection there) can avoid the > misrouting problem entirely. I do see one problem with this. If a site is "mentioned" in the maps, but is not "registered", then it's impossible to tell by examination whether this site [a] is real, but simply unregistered, [b] was once real, has since died, has had its map entry deleted, but has not had its name removed from its neighbors' map-files because their sysadmins aren't staying current, or [c] is a simple typo. > Sure, people will still have misrouting problems. But at least you aren't > designing it into the process in such a way that it is inevitable! I guess we define the problem differently. To my eyes, the cause of the problem is that some sites don't register... and still expect to receive the same quality-of-service as if they had done so. Sending in a simple map-entry isn't a lot of work. If I set up a connection for a neighbor-site, I _do_ check to make sure that their name isn't in use by any registered or "mentioned" site, just as you do. However, I go further... I check to see whether they've sent out a map-entry, urge them to do so, and assist them in filling it out if necessary. Then, if they don't do so, and if somebody comes along and preempts their name... TOO BAD! I'll sever my link to the neighbor-who-could-not-be-bothered! To sum it all up... I guess both of our approaches have points in favor and points against. It seems that this is one issue on which reasonable people can disagree. Unless there's a really strong collective decision about this issue on the Net, each area map coordinator will probably permit or proscribe the mentioning of unregistered sites in his/her area's official map files. -- Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303