🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2323@icarus.fluke.UUCP> joe@fluke.UUCP (Joe Kelsey) writes:

> I think that is important that anyone who is tempted to jump into the
> domain discussion consider that what we really want is a way to name
> hosts *independent* of their physical location or physical network
> address, since both of these are volitile.  What we need is a user-intuitive
> way of finding out host names, then a set up protocols to implement some
> sort of limited distributed name server/resolver on the UUCP transport
> mechanism.  This is possible, but an important step to take is to disconnect
> your idea of hostname from physically restricting ideas, like geographic or
> network addresses.
> 
> /Joe

Independent of "physical network address", yes, of course, but I don't
think that geographic reference in some instances is any more
restricting than organizational domains. There are many UUCP sites
that decide who to call (and how often) on the basis of COST. The
ARPAnet has no such factor involved in its routing. Example: should
a University in Germany be in the same domain as UC Berkeley because
it is a University? ARPA says yes. UUCP should say no. Geography is
counter-intuitive in the ARPA world. Not always in the UUCP world.

True enough, the physical network address can be very volitile, but
the geographic location is not. Machines don't move about in space
(see "inertia" for similar examples). Likewise, Northern California
isn't on its way anywhere in a hurry (don't tell that to seismologists ;~> )

/jordan
-------
ARPA:	jordan@ucb-vax.BERKELEY.EDU
UUCP:	jordan@ucbvax.UUCP