BIG networks

[Mike Kupfer]

> > > Discussion about DECNET being trivial networks, like 5-10 VMS VAXes
> > > on a spine or point to point, as opposed to the UUCP net having
> > > hundreds or thousands of nodes with no centralized administrative
> > > control...
> 
> > Discussion of DEC's internal DECnet network, EASYNET, with ~3700 active
> > nodes and central administration done by 5 people...
> 
> ...
>
> You can't really compare EASYNET to the UUCP net.
> If you want to compare EASYNET to a net containing UNIX machines, try the
> ARPANET.  DECNET is, as was pointed out, a "full routing network"; this is
> because there is probably no need for store-and-forward routing of mail
> messages, as there is with the UUCP net.  If one were sending all mail
> over the ARPANET, one could probably get the same sort of "that site doesn't
> exist or can't be reached" messages immediately.  

You don't get immediate "no such user" or "this site is down" messages
when you send mail over the DARPA Internet.  What typically happens is
you send the bogus letter, and then you get return mail telling
(sometimes cryptically) what the problem was.  In the case of "no such
user," the return can be as quick as a few minutes.  The "host down"
message typically takes longer (I've seen 3 days) because of a long
timeout.  Either way the return mail has the text of the message you
sent, so all is not lost.

Which brings me to my point.  As Guy said, the problem is in using a
store-and-forward net.  You can argue that a virtual circuit system
gives you the advantages that VMS mail gives you.  Or you can argue
that the mail system should queue the message and deliver it when
possible.  It seems silly to me to get what amounts to a busy signal
just because some gateway happens to be down for P.M. just at the time
I send my letter.  But it also seems that uucp mail could learn a
few tricks from the Internet system.  
-- 
Mike Kupfer
kupfer at Berkeley
...!ucbvax!kupfer
When the going gets tough, it's time for tea.