What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ? As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on the Services they use as opposed to a religious adoration for TCP/IP. What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same 160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ? IPv6 is a loser because everyone has to carry the overhead of bloated packets. It is a one-size-fits-all take it or leave it solution. People leave it. The real (new?) need is ONE-WAY streaming to carry ATSC to HDTVs. That can be done with 64-bit addressing in an IPv4 footprint. The Destination Address is most critical to deliver the AV show to the right viewer. IPv6 is too little, too late, in too big a package and at a high price. UNIX-based CPE is now under $50. Anyone can download the complete open source and all the tools to build it. http://www.linksysbycisco.com/gpl UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD funding programs run by people who do not write code, they write contracts and purchase orders. What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same 160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
IPv6 is a loser because everyone has to carry the overhead of bloated packets. It is a one-size-fits-all take it or leave it solution.
By that logic, wouldn't IPv4 also be considered a loser because everyone has been carrying the overhead of bloated packets for years? Especially near the beginning, we didn't need a 32-bit-sized address ... And why would we jump to 64-bit addressing, since you're so worried about the bloat in packets? Wouldn't it be more sensible to move to 36-bit or 40-bit addresses? If we jump to 64, aren't we wasting at least 56 bits per packet then (2 * (64 - 36))? And if we're going to completely re-work IP, why wouldn't we just move to a version that ensures addresses are plentiful? And if we're going to do that, why not just go with 128 bits? Bits are cheap. I mean, really, really, really, REALLY cheap. Trading a few bytes worth in order to get a solution that'll last us for the rest of our lifetimes (and then some) is a no-brainer. However, if you're really interested in it, I suggest you read the message I posted, subject of "Important", a few days ago. It suggests a bloat-free way to continue to grow the existing network. It's completely practical and I think you should promote it. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same 160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
I must have dozed off--what is the connection between the Subject: and the recent traffic under it. "The Internet" (Note caps) is the (I'd like to say "web" but that will be misunderstood--current usage is actually correct, but bigger than porn and such) of connections between networks. Its connection layer is IP, other protocols such as UDP and IP (AND OTHERS) "ride" on IP, which in turn rides on one or more layers of facility-relevant transport protocols. UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol. Other protocols, including network protocols (NNTP, SMTP) used in networking as a sociologist might use the term. -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang style addresses like mine original seismo!atina!pete transitioned for a while to pete@atina.UUCP and later to pete@atina.ar. UUCP was not just a point to point protocol. Originally it was a set of utility programs to permit copying files between Unix systems (Unix to Unix CoPy, hence the name), since electronic emails where essentially files UUCP became the transport mechanism for both electronic email and later Usenet News. Some referred to UUCP as Unix to Unix Communications Protocol, not quite right but yes one of the pieces of UUCP (uucico = Unix to Unix Copy in Copy Out) implemented different type of communication protocols negotiated during the initial handshake phase and fine tuned to different communication facilities, point to point, telephone modems, specific modems such as Telebit Trailblazers with PEP, different types of encapsulation using X.28, X25, and obviously TCP/IP. For several years until we've got a more decent telecommunications infrastructure UUCP was all we had in Argentina to let the academic and science community reach out and communicate with their colleagues around the world, we had an adapted version of the UUCP implementation for DOS (some called it UUPC) that became very popular and enabled our "UUCP network" to reach over 800 nodes in the early 90's when we later were able to get a direct (IP) connection to the rest of the world. My .02 Cheers Jorge
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang style addresses like mine original seismo!atina!pete transitioned for a while to pete@atina.UUCP and later to pete@atina.ar.
i don't recall .uucp making it into the actual DNS, but i remember our mail system used it as a trigger to do a uucp-maps lookup.
For several years until we've got a more decent telecommunications infrastructure UUCP was all we had in Argentina to let the academic and science community reach out and communicate with their colleagues around the world, we had an adapted version of the UUCP implementation for DOS (some called it UUPC) that became very popular and enabled our "UUCP network" to reach over 800 nodes in the early 90's when we later were able to get a direct (IP) connection to the rest of the world.
uucp introduced a far-flung group of hosts, academic and otherwise, to things that were popular on the internet, namely email and USENET. i'm sure its an open debate as to if being in the UUCP maps also meant that you were "on the Internet", but many people seemed or seem to think this way. i recall seeing uucp going into not only south america, but the caribbean, south pacific and many other regions, much the same way that you describe it. there were several organizations who were quite dedicated to using uucp over (dialup/X.25/carrier-pigeon) in order to extend email and USENET deep into the third world. -- Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +92 336 520-4504
On 4/4/2010 10:37, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang style addresses like mine original seismo!atina!pete transitioned for a while to pete@atina.UUCP and later to pete@atina.ar.
i don't recall .uucp making it into the actual DNS, but i remember our mail system used it as a trigger to do a uucp-maps lookup.
I thought it was a sendmail hack, along with .bitnet and others.
i'm sure its an open debate as to if being in the UUCP maps also meant that you were "on the Internet", but many people seemed or seem to think this way.
My problem is that the UUCP maps (and the host-host communications) existed before, during and apart from anything properly labeled "The Internet". That the UUCP world developed links to "The Internet" (and FIDONet, and BITNET and ....) goes without saying. But landing you Piper Cherokee at LAX doesn't make you part of the Commercial Airline Industry. -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
That the UUCP world developed links to "The Internet" (and FIDONet, and BITNET and ....) goes without saying. But landing you Piper Cherokee at LAX doesn't make you part of the Commercial Airline Industry.
That's how for some time the distinction between "internet" and "Internet" was born. Jorge
i don't recall .uucp making it into the actual DNS, but i remember our mail system used it as a trigger to do a uucp-maps lookup.
It was for a brief period of time as a pseudo-domain and placeholder for MX RRs for machines participating in the UUCP project. Mary Ann Horton (formerly Mark Horton) was in charge of the UUCP zone. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc976
uucp introduced a far-flung group of hosts, academic and otherwise, to things that were popular on the internet, namely email and USENET.
Once upon a time there were not Internet and connection to ARPAnet was restricted, which triggered into existence CSNET, BITNET, etc, etc.) and for many, particularly developing countries or small institutions, could not afford to pay for a permanent connection sort of a DDS 56K. BTW in Argentina we didn't have even digital lines, just nasty copper between some places.
i'm sure its an open debate as to if being in the UUCP maps also meant that you were "on the Internet", but many people seemed or seem to think this way.
At some time there was some sort of confusion everywhere, and also turf battles between different "networks", CSNET vs BTINET, etc, but people one way or another got connected and that was the goal those days to get as many people as possible connected via some network and at minimum be able to have electronic email. There were some popular sites that ran services such as ftp via email, archie via email, etc.
i recall seeing uucp going into not only south america, but the caribbean, south pacific and many other regions, much the same way that you describe it.
Many of the developing countries did their first step that way.
there were several organizations who were quite dedicated to using uucp over (dialup/X.25/carrier-pigeon) in order to extend email and USENET deep into the third world.
Yes we used what we had at hand, Rick Adams originally at SEISMO and later at UUNET, Randy Bush, the folks at Pyramid, and many others helped a lot to get people on board. Very interesting days :-), while visiting Glenn Ricart (SURAnet) at UMD I remember giving sort of a lecture about UUCP and the tricks we used to get connected to his undergrad students. Cheers Jorge
I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU (Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing. You could just about see the wide-eyed disbelief by some as they saw for example alt.politics, you people just say almost *anything!*, with your real name and location attached, and NOTHING HAPPENS??? I still believe that had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union as the million other politicians who wish to take credit. It's arguable that UUCP (and Usenet, email, etc that it carried) was one of the most powerful forces for change in modern history. All you needed was some freely available software, a very modest computer, a modem, a phone line, and like so many things in life, a friend. And then once you "got it", you looked towards connecting to the "real" internet, you knew just what you were after. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU (Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing.
I bet that there many histories, perhaps those that didn't have access to modern communications and vast resources were able to appreciate much more what was possible to do with uucp. I can tell for sure that in one instance it saved the life of a little kid in the north of Argentina. This kid had some rare disease and the rural doctor that was attending him didn't know how to treat him, but he had a pc an a modem and he was one of the nodes using the dos uucp implementation and he sent us an email (in the postmaster role I always got requests as if I were the index or 411 service on the networking those days) asking how to get in contact with somebody to get help. We were able via PAHO (Panamerican Health Org) to find somebody that had a contact at WHO (World Health Org) which helped us to locate some doctor familiar with that disease. We finally got in touch via email with a Japanese doc who help the Argentinean doc treat the little kid and he survived. This was not the classic send me $1 for the sick kid scam, it was very real. Regards Jorge
On 4/4/2010 17:20, Barry Shein wrote:
I still believe that had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union as the million other politicians who wish to take credit.
It's arguable that UUCP (and Usenet, email, etc that it carried) was one of the most powerful forces for change in modern history. All you needed was some freely available software, a very modest computer, a modem, a phone line, and like so many things in life, a friend.
And then once you "got it", you looked towards connecting to the "real" internet, you knew just what you were after.
I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like "the net will change the world", because for the first time people from all over the globe were communicating fairly openly and inexpensively, and somehow the internet and UUCP seemed to come in "under the radar" back then. I had more than a few people scoff at me for thinking that way though. :-)
I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like "the net will change the world", because for the first time people from all over the globe were communicating fairly openly and inexpensively, and somehow the internet and UUCP seemed to come in "under the radar" back then. I had more than a few people scoff at me for thinking that way though. :-)
Long hours and black magic, but true. I totally agree it was one of the factors that changed in the world. On a personal note it certainly changed my life. While my job had to do with information technology and telecommunications the Internet mambo jambo was just a side effect that ended being the enabling factor to permit and entire national community become part of global community and the inflection point to break the monopoly of international communications in several countries. No doubt that sooner or later it was going to happen with or without me, I just happened to be at the right space-time and surrounded with good friends and colleagues that thought it was a noble cause to go the extra mile and extra hours and we all tried to work in a cooperative fashion, something that over the past few years I feel has been lost. Cheers Jorge
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jim Burwell wrote:
I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like "the net will change the world", because for the first time people from all over the globe were communicating fairly openly and inexpensively, and somehow the internet and UUCP seemed to come in "under the radar" back then. I had more than a few people scoff at me for thinking that way though. :-)
I know exactly what you mean. I first connected got online in 1992 (late by the standards of some around here :) ). Right away I knew it was going to change everything. I tried to explain this to people but mostly got a blank stare in return. These days you hear people occassionally say that no one predicted the explosive impact of the Internet. I did, and so did a lot of others. I will say that I expected it was going to take us longer to get to this point (near ubiquitous network access in the developed world, and network technologies being widely adopted by government & business to deliver services). In any case, we're at the beginning of this revolution, not the end. I expect it will take several centuries for the full impact of the information revolution to become evident. Cheers, Rob -- Email: robert@timetraveller.org IRC: Solver Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com Open Source: The revolution that silently changed the world
It wasn't Moscow State U. It was privately-owned network (called RELCOM) from the day one (which was in 1990, not 1987... in 1987 connecting a dial-up modem to phone network was still illegal in the USSR), built by DEMOS co-op (that company is still alive, by the way). Moscow State U was one of the first customers (the guy responsible for connecting MSU later founded Stalker Inc. which makes hi-perf e-mail servers). It was UUCP-based initially, though I decided to avoid pathalias (it being a horrible kludge) and wrote UUCP message router which translated domain hostnames into UUCP next-hops - this is why email to .SU never used bang paths. The ability to build dirt-cheap networks over crappy phone lines and using some no-name PCs as message and packet routers was noticed, see for example: "Developing Networks in Less Industrialized Nations" by Larry Press (EEE Computer, vol 28, No 6, June, 1995, pp 66-71) http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/ieee.htm --vadim On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Barry Shein wrote:
I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU (Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing.
You could just about see the wide-eyed disbelief by some as they saw for example alt.politics, you people just say almost *anything!*, with your real name and location attached, and NOTHING HAPPENS???
I still believe that had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union as the million other politicians who wish to take credit.
It's arguable that UUCP (and Usenet, email, etc that it carried) was one of the most powerful forces for change in modern history. All you needed was some freely available software, a very modest computer, a modem, a phone line, and like so many things in life, a friend.
And then once you "got it", you looked towards connecting to the "real" internet, you knew just what you were after.
On 4/4/2010 09:57, Jorge Amodio wrote:
UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang style addresses like mine original seismo!atina!pete transitioned for a while to pete@atina.UUCP and later to pete@atina.ar.
I agree with some of this and most of the following, but I think the problem is not so much my history as it is the drift in definitions. And I do not pretend to any special authority in the area. But when I think of "network" I think of things like the PSTN, ABC, Mutual, California's DOJ torn-tape TTY, and FIDO where the message to be delivered was the focus and the internal works were pretty much uninteresting to the "user".
UUCP was not just a point to point protocol. Originally it was a set of utility programs to permit copying files between Unix systems (Unix to Unix CoPy, hence the name), since electronic emails where essentially files UUCP became the transport mechanism for both electronic email and later Usenet News.
CoPy is the only decode that ever occurs to me. And the file view of the world is correct and I had forgotten it.
Some referred to UUCP as Unix to Unix Communications Protocol, not quite right but yes one of the pieces of UUCP (uucico = Unix to Unix Copy in Copy Out) implemented different type of communication protocols negotiated during the initial handshake phase and fine tuned to different communication facilities, point to point, telephone modems, specific modems such as Telebit Trailblazers with PEP, different types of encapsulation using X.28, X25, and obviously TCP/IP.
For several years until we've got a more decent telecommunications infrastructure UUCP was all we had in Argentina to let the academic and science community reach out and communicate with their colleagues around the world, we had an adapted version of the UUCP implementation for DOS (some called it UUPC) that became very popular and enabled our "UUCP network" to reach over 800 nodes in the early 90's when we later were able to get a direct (IP) connection to the rest of the world.
My .02
Mine is that while "UUCP" took on a networkish patina in recent years (I know a place here in town that still uses it, or did when I last had contact with them a few years ago). But in it origins, UUCP was no more a network function that "cp" is today. (Hmmm....interesting digression. Was there NFS before there was IP? Seems like it, but I don't remember how it worked.) With UUCP you had to dial somebody up, say howdy (sometimes human to human) and issue the copy command. Sure enough, frequent users had cron jobs and scripts to do all that. And sure enough, co-operative sites would strip their own names off the beginning of a bang path and pass the file to the next in line, the next time they talked to them. Which might be anywhere from a few seconds to never from now. -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On Apr 4, 2010, at 12:02 42PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/4/2010 09:57, Jorge Amodio wrote:
UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang style addresses like mine original seismo!atina!pete transitioned for a while to pete@atina.UUCP and later to pete@atina.ar.
I agree with some of this and most of the following, but I think the problem is not so much my history as it is the drift in definitions.
And I do not pretend to any special authority in the area.
But when I think of "network" I think of things like the PSTN, ABC, Mutual, California's DOJ torn-tape TTY, and FIDO where the message to be delivered was the focus and the internal works were pretty much uninteresting to the "user".
UUCP was not just a point to point protocol. Originally it was a set of utility programs to permit copying files between Unix systems (Unix to Unix CoPy, hence the name), since electronic emails where essentially files UUCP became the transport mechanism for both electronic email and later Usenet News.
CoPy is the only decode that ever occurs to me. And the file view of the world is correct and I had forgotten it.
Some referred to UUCP as Unix to Unix Communications Protocol, not quite right but yes one of the pieces of UUCP (uucico = Unix to Unix Copy in Copy Out) implemented different type of communication protocols negotiated during the initial handshake phase and fine tuned to different communication facilities, point to point, telephone modems, specific modems such as Telebit Trailblazers with PEP, different types of encapsulation using X.28, X25, and obviously TCP/IP.
For several years until we've got a more decent telecommunications infrastructure UUCP was all we had in Argentina to let the academic and science community reach out and communicate with their colleagues around the world, we had an adapted version of the UUCP implementation for DOS (some called it UUPC) that became very popular and enabled our "UUCP network" to reach over 800 nodes in the early 90's when we later were able to get a direct (IP) connection to the rest of the world.
My .02
Mine is that while "UUCP" took on a networkish patina in recent years (I know a place here in town that still uses it, or did when I last had contact with them a few years ago).
But in it origins, UUCP was no more a network function that "cp" is today. (Hmmm....interesting digression. Was there NFS before there was IP? Seems like it, but I don't remember how it worked.)
With UUCP you had to dial somebody up, say howdy (sometimes human to human) and issue the copy command. Sure enough, frequent users had cron jobs and scripts to do all that. And sure enough, co-operative sites would strip their own names off the beginning of a bang path and pass the file to the next in line, the next time they talked to them. Which might be anywhere from a few seconds to never from now.
There were two primary user-issued commands, uucp and uux (remote execution). You'd say something like uucp file... site!file uucp site!file... file uux site!command [site!file...] uux command site!file... The paths you could write to or retrieve from, as well as the list of commands that could be executed remotely, were set in a configuration file. The former was typically restricted much as anon-ftp is; the latter was typically rmail and -- after about 1982 -- rnews for Usenet. There was very little, if any, manual dialing; you typically either had an autodialer or you were polled by someone who did. Calling frequency and legal times of day for calling were also configurable, though polling -- and only polling -- was typically done via cron. The receiving site did not strip its name off the email path, the sending site did. That is, if I typed mail foo!bar!bletch!user my mailer would translate that to uux foo!rmail bar!bletch!user Site foo, in turn, would execute uux bar!rmail bletch!user etc. File transfer wasn't multihop, nor was remote execution per se. Usenet used a flooding algorithm with duplicate suppression. Uucp was designed for autodial modems, originally controlled by Bell autodialers; on PDP-11s, you needed a DN-11 to control the dialer. The dialer was hooked to a modem -- a real one, with no telephone or dial attached to it; the modem was also hooked to a serial path. Even very early on, though, uucp operated over higher-speed devices, such as the Bell Labs Datakit Virtual Circuit Switch and the ARPANET. Figuring the explicit mail routing path was annoying. I wrote (and Peter Honeyman rewrote) a command called pathalias; it took topology and cost data and generated the optimum path. Since cost had to reflect monetary cost, reliability, and policy -- not everyone would forward for everyone else -- people had to tweak the metric to get the effect they desired. (That, at least, should sound vaguely on-topic for NANOG...) But the visibility of the path was the only thing ordinary users had to worry about. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is fuzzy on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I confess that my memory is also dim about whether uucp file a!b!c would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I confess that my memory is also dim about whether
uucp file a!b!c
would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while...
I'm pretty sure it was adding 'uucp' in the commands list that enabled the behaviour. HDB might have used a different config file syntax for turning this on. I would have to dig out the source code to remember the details. The command syntax you show above worked -- UUCP handled the re-queueing internally. --lyndon
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is fuzzy on the details ... You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I confess that my memory is also dim about whether uucp file a!b!c would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while... Yup. The real work was done by uucico (using an x.21 type protocol implemented by Greg Chesson of EGREG fame if I remember correctly). UUCP and friends where front-ends for it and has been reimplemnted as the honeydanber version. Then there were the AT&T Basic Network Utilities version, Taylor uucp, the EUUG version etc. of these. jaap
This is an example of the law that the number of replys is directly propotional to the cluelessness of the post? Bruce On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is fuzzy on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I confess that my memory is also dim about whether
uucp file a!b!c
would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while...
Yup. The real work was done by uucico (using an x.21 type protocol implemented by Greg Chesson of EGREG fame if I remember correctly). UUCP and friends where front-ends for it and has been reimplemnted as the honeydanber version. Then there were the AT&T Basic Network Utilities version, Taylor uucp, the EUUG version etc. of these.
jaap
-- - Bruce Williams
On 4/4/2010 12:18, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is fuzzy on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I confess that my memory is also dim about whether
uucp file a!b!c
would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while...
Heh this brings back some memories. uucp/uux for email and news. I remember writing shells scripts that would pull the UUCP maps out of the UseNet newsgroup (comp.mail.maps IIRC) and run "pathalias" on it to generate email bang path routes to all other mapped UUCP sites from yours so that you could use domain-style email addresses instead of remembering the paths! So then you could address an email to "user@uucpsite.uucp" and Sendmail or Smail (I ran Smail) would look it up in the pathalias generated databse and convert it to a bang path. :) I also remember a few key "dual-connected" sites which were both on the UUCP network and the internet were used as gateways into the internet/DNS/SMTP email world. Specifically I remember "psuvax" being a widely used, and abused site for this, which eventually shut down that service because too many people were using them as a UUCP/internet gateway for email, sucking up all their cycles and bandwidth! -Jim
On Apr 4, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is fuzzy on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I confess that my memory is also dim about whether
uucp file a!b!c
would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while...
IIRC, uucp file a!b!c did not work, only uucp file a!b. Email, OTOH, was roughly translated automatically to uucp {qf,df} b!{qf,df} and the other side knew to unpack qf/df and do the right thing. Owen
On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:55 07PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the visibility of the path was the only thing ordinary users had to worry about.
you forgot, "and thus sigs were born." they once served a purpose other than ego
Right, of course -- they had to show the uucp path from a well-known node. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:01:30 EDT, Steven Bellovin said:
Right, of course -- they had to show the uucp path from a well-known node.
I remember trying to debug a very messy mail routing problem some 25 years ago, which we finally traced back to the fact that pathalias was too smart by half, and some sites were too helpful. My user was trying to send mail to a path 'fluffybunny!whiterabbit!jellybean' or some such - but when the mail left Bitnet via a different gateway than it was expected, the gateway chose the closest fluffybunny to send it to - and when *that* machine forwarded to whiterabbit, and whiterabbit couldn't find jellybean in its UUCP tables, we were most mystified that the bounce messages came back with European timestamps for a box supposedly in the midwest US. There was much kicking of metal trash cans when I finally figured out what happened. ;)
But when I think of "network" I think of things like the PSTN, ABC, Mutual, California's DOJ torn-tape TTY, and FIDO where the message to be delivered was the focus and the internal works were pretty much uninteresting to the "user".
Read "Notable Computer Networks, John Quarterman and Josiah Hoskins, CACM Vol 29, No 10, Oct 1986", UUCP was considered one of the "Cooperative Networks".
UUCP was not just a point to point protocol. Originally it was a set of utility programs to permit copying files between Unix systems (Unix to Unix CoPy, hence the name), since electronic emails where essentially files UUCP became the transport mechanism for both electronic email and later Usenet News.
CoPy is the only decode that ever occurs to me. And the file view of the world is correct and I had forgotten it.
Steven Bellovin can give you more details, there are several papers and he wrote one with Peter Honeyman who is the guy that rewrote the original version of the UUCP utilities developed by Mike Lesk at AT&T.
Mine is that while "UUCP" took on a networkish patina in recent years (I know a place here in town that still uses it, or did when I last had contact with them a few years ago).
I know some that still use it.
With UUCP you had to dial somebody up, say howdy (sometimes human to human) and issue the copy command. Sure enough, frequent users had cron jobs and scripts to do all that. And sure enough, co-operative sites would strip their own names off the beginning of a bang path and pass the file to the next in line, the next time they talked to them. Which might be anywhere from a few seconds to never from now.
Read RFC976 for additional details. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc976 Cheers Jorge.
On 4/4/2010 09:02, Larry Sheldon wrote: This attribution line is wrong--I meant to leave only the two line below it--for my purposes it did matter who said it.
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
The line above should have been edited out leaving only these two.
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same 160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
I must have dozed off--what is the connection between the Subject: and the recent traffic under it?
[snip] My apologies to Mr. Greco -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
i remember implementing quasi-QoS on uucp. after having our modem pool hogged too many times by a select few users, i put a script into our mail system. if the script determined an email was > X bytes (100k?), the message body was rewritten with: "Contents removed at LSUC, email is not a file transport protocol." and the mail was left to continue on its path. i kinda feel like adding the same script back into my servers. 8^) -- Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +92 336 520-4504 "I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I live here and I'm going to take a leak." - Lester Pearson in 1967, during a meeting between himself and President Lyndon Johnson, whose Secret Service detail had taken over Pearson's cottage retreat. At one point, a Johnson guard asked Pearson, "Who are you and where are you going?"
On 4/3/2010 6:38 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on the Services they use as opposed to a religious adoration for TCP/IP.
See: <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt> ...anti-v6 religious diatribe elided... mis-directed attack, in spite of having such an easy target. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
On 4/4/2010 00:29, Randy Bush wrote:
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD funding programs run by people who do not write code
you're shocking lack of clue is showing
As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books, articles, and anecdotes. ("Access" here meaning physical access to a document, or practical access meaning "unable to derive meaning from a document in hand.) -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD funding programs run by people who do not write code
you're shocking lack of clue is showing
As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books, articles, and anecdotes. ("Access" here meaning physical access to a document, or practical access meaning "unable to derive meaning from a document in hand.)
Or being so extremely stupid not using this medium to ask directly to many who were and are still part of it, many of them reading the non-operational contents of this list. Cheers Jorge
If you did some more reading this would all be come clear? On 4 April 2010 02:38, IPv3.com <ipv3.com@gmail.com> wrote:
What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
Well both and neither, both of these are used and much more!
As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on the Services they use as opposed to a religious adoration for TCP/IP.
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same
160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
That isn't going to happen to house it, think about how massively its implemented?
IPv6 is a loser because everyone has to carry the overhead of bloated packets. It is a one-size-fits-all take it or leave it solution. People leave it.
The real (new?) need is ONE-WAY streaming to carry ATSC to HDTVs. That can be done with 64-bit addressing in an IPv4 footprint. The Destination Address is most critical to deliver the AV show to the right viewer.
IPv6 is too little, too late, in too big a package and at a high price.
Some would agree, I don't. And its not too little to late because many people have already changing to IPv6, I think its quite high up there on ISPs todo list for those who haven't.
UNIX-based CPE is now under $50. Anyone can download the complete open source and all the tools to build it. http://www.linksysbycisco.com/gpl
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD funding programs run by people who do not write code, they write contracts and purchase orders.
What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
Both and more. With your UNIX-to-UNIX suggestion, I'm not 100% sure on what you mean but what protocols do you think Unix uses? 'Cos it aint guna be Unix-Internet-Protocol/Transmission Control Protocol is it? Also when you say Unix systems I get the impression you are hinting at something open source, especially as that URL ends in /gpl but Unix isn't open source only some various of it are so if you were counting on open source as a solution, I don't believe you can. -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/
Sorry for double post: Also having the email account ipv3.com@gmail.com, thats not very useful? This sort email address should be on the list rules like that other fellow who was spamming about top 50 AS's for botnets/spam etc. -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/
On Saturday 03 April 2010 09:38:46 pm IPv3.com wrote:
What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
'The Internet' is a collective internetworking of several thousand autonomous systems, using a common protocol, that masquerades as a unified whole. Whether this protocol is 1822, NCP, or IPvX is irrelevant. -- On the UUCP memory lane side of this thread, I had a site in the uucp maps way back when, used smail on a Tandy 6000, then an AT&T 3B1, took a stripped-down feed (a full feed at 9600 over InterLATA long distance was brutal, even when a full feed was only 40MB per day), and had both a '.uucp' pseudo-FQDN as well as a bang path from uunet as such. Ran C-News on both the T6K and the 3B1....whew, that's a long time ago. My uucp upstream had leased line uucp links to more than one upstream. His upstream links were active pretty much all of the time, and I do for one remember doing multihop bang path uucp using HoneyDanBer on the 3B1 many moons ago. Sort of a poor-man's FTP archive access. He for a while took full feeds on Sun 3 gear, which was an upgrade from the Tandy 6000 that previously had had 9600bps leased line links, and was how I found him in the first place, being a T6K user. Many software archives were available with bang-path uucp; with pathalias and the uucp-maps loaded you could even do, IIRC, uunet-homed bang-path uucp. And when all but your own path were on leased lines, the transfer happened pretty much immediately, at least for small stuff. Then he got leased line SLIP links, and got his own real FQDN. He's still out there, and still offers UNIX shell access....nanook, you listening? There was business in uucp linkage back in the day; uunet made its start that way, remember? As to the sendmail 'hack;' well, uucp was and is just another email transport, like SMTP or Netmail/Echomail, is. Nothing really hackish about it. So, since, through uucp 'proxies' to ftp archives (a uucp to IP gateway of sorts), was I 'on the Internet' or not? Yes and no.....but then I got SLIP access, thanks to Karn's KA9Q NOS ported to 3B1, and the rest, as they say, was history. Still have my first editions of 'Managing UUCP and Usenet' and 'Using UUCP and USenet' packed away somewhere....
participants (21)
-
Barry Shein -
Bruce Williams -
Dave CROCKER -
IPv3.com -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
James Bensley -
Jim Burwell -
Jim Mercer -
Joe Greco -
Jorge Amodio -
Lamar Owen -
Larry Sheldon -
Lyndon Nerenberg -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
Randy Bush -
Robert Brockway -
Steven Bellovin -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Vadim Antonov -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu