Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!dartvax!davidk
From: davidk@dartvax.UUCP (David C. Kovar)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Overloading the UUCP network. (Keep this message away from flammables.)
Message-ID: <742@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Feb-84 15:18:44 EST
Article-I.D.: dartvax.742
Posted: Sat Feb 18 15:18:44 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Feb-84 03:09:25 EST
References: <290@hou3c.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College
Lines: 59


	You suggest that Lauren go off and start up his own PCP network
so that UUCP will not become anymore bogged down than it is. You also
state that most of your problems with UUCP involve hosts going down,
causing you to reroute via other sites or networks. No where do you 
mention that the problems with UUCP involve overuse. Now I agree that
UUCP handles one hell of a lot of traffic, and I also agree that adding
PC sites will add more of a load to the net, but I fail to agree that
switching the PC's to another net will solve the problem.

	First off, I am going to send news and mail even if I do not
have UUCP running on my IBM XT. With it, I can compose on my own system
and free ports up on the colleges system. Without it, I will be composing
and thinking on the college's VAX and tying up their resources. Either
way, that article/mail is going out on the net. So in this case, I see
a PLUS in releasing UUCP for the PC, not a minus. The net load stays
about the same and my host system gets me off on my own.

	Secondly, the only people who can tie into an existing nodes
will have to request permission to do so from that site. Same process
that you have to go through for an account. This means that every PC
owner and their brother will not go out an join the net, they can't
get at it. They will all be paying for their own phone calls, not
the rest of the network. (I already ventured that their postings
to the net would stay the same, keeping that cost to the net even.)
Now each site might not want 40 PC UUCP sites calling in, but they
can deal with that on their own, that will not affect the net as a
whole.

	But, we will have a large number of new site names, and that
must be dealt with. And I also would not want to route my mail/news
through a PC site. To this end, we might add a 'pc' to the site name,
indicating that it was a leaf and should not be included in internal
paths. This would also help keep the site names unique.

	I wrap this up with one question: Who owns the net? If you
do not want to subsidize IBM, do not permit PC UUCP's at your site.
Each particular 'you' out there can refuse to subsidize in this way
but I would be rather upset if you decided to prevent me from posting
just because I own a IBM and you get paid $30K a year to hack UNIX.
If worst comes to worst, I'll go buy PC/IX and then be a 'real' site.
And by damned, if you do not like that, I can probably manage to
trade my car in on a MicroVax. If you want to keep VAX sites off of
the net, I wish you luck.

	Sorry about the flame, all.


-- 
David C. Kovar    
	    Usenet:	{linus | decvax | cornell}!dartvax!davidk
	    ARPA:	kovar@MIT-ML  (Infrequent)

	    U.S. Snail  HB 3140
			Dartmouth College
			Hanover NH
			03755

"The difficult we did yesterday, the impossible we are doing now."