BIG networks

[Guy Harris]

> > 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...

This whole thing was triggered by somebody bitching that UNIX mail was
a pain because it doesn't notify you immediately that a message can't
be delivered, as opposed to VMS mail.

Well, EASYNET may be a nice net, and the reply did point out that one
can't dismiss the difference between the two mail systems that easily, *BUT*
it's still not relevant.  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.  If the VMS mail system started
using UUCP heavily, it would have the exact same problems UNIX has.  If
one had a centrally-administrated network like EASYNET of UNIX systems,
which permitted any machine on the net to establish a connection to any
other machine using the network and transport layers of the network's
protocols, it could have the same advantages as the VMS mail system.

In other words, the difference between UNIX mail and VMS mail in this regard
has nothing to do with UNIX or VMS - it has to do with the fact that UNIX
mail permits messages to be transported using UUCP, which may have reliability
problems out the wazoo, but which *does* permit you to send messages with
no more investment other than in a modem and in phone charges to the UUCP
sites you route mail through.

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy