Area-code as uucp domains

[B. Banerjee]

Is this a private discussion, or can anyone join in?
If its public, I'd like to contribute my admittedly inconsequential
two-bits.
dual!fair writes -

>> I submit the following:
>> 
>> 1. Map the network (already underway)
>> 	(Thanks to parsec!kolstad, cbosgd!ksh, and wjh12!sob)
>> 2. Write routing software to handle domain addresses (underway?)
>> 3. Write a name server for ARPA.
>> 4. Distribute the software EVERYWHERE.
>> 5. Qualify for the `.UUCP' top level domain.
>> 6. NOW begin discussion for domain sub-division.
>> 
>> Number 4 is one of the most important, because if the whole network
>> doesn't participate, we're dead.  We can provide a certain amount of
>> backward compatibility, but we can't have two network routing schemes
>> working side by side, particularly in light of the addressing
>> problems.  I'm trying to put off the sub-division discussion until we
>> have the software ready to handle the problem. It does no good to
>> discuss grandiose plans for sub-division, when the current routing
>> systems don't handle domains at all.

I substantially agree with this.  However, the "anarchy" of the
current situation may make this rather difficult to enforce.
With news alone, you have many sites still running A news
(out of inertia?).  This is for a system of relatively recent
vintage.  When you are speaking of UUCP software, and mailers,
you open up a whole can of worms.  I somehow doubt that the
inertia of the UUCP network can be easily overcome.

	The solution is easy, though rather draconic.  * Don't *
make the new software backwards compatible with the old.  Then
make sure that enough sites, including the backbone ones, change
over that us little guys will have to convert out of necessity.

	A pot-pourri of other considerations regarding this.

	1.	The routing tables/name-server on the gateway
	machines has to be up-to-date.  Preferably, the process
	of verifying links could be automated.  Also, the process
	of updating routing tables (Shades of net.adm.sites!!).

	2.	It would be great if some order were imposed on
	the UUCP network, doing away with leaf nodes.  Preferably
	there should be at least two paths to each node (I'll let
	the wizards figure out the topological considerations).

	3.	Once, 1. and 2. have been addressed together with
	domains; why not have the software provide adaptive routing?
	Each forwarding site would require to know the routes to
	a relatively small number of systems/sub-domains.

	4.	The new software should be free, or close to it.
	One of the reasons our site didn't get on the CSNET was
	that the 5K annually probably wouldn't have been justified
	in terms of the number of users requiring internet mailing
	facilities.

	5.	A semi-grumble!  If there is a concerted effort to
	map the net, its still a mystery at this site.  At least
	2 months ago I read on the net that we could be expecting
	a "Cybernet plea for information" soon.  I'm still waiting!

Enough for now.  Just voicing my opinions.
-- 


				Binayak Banerjee
		{allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje