SLIP or PPP instead of G proto (Re: USENIX Board Studies UUCP)

[Peter da Silva]

In article <37222 at apple.Apple.COM> fair at Apple.COM (Erik E. Fair) writes:
> Peter, what you describe is the same (functionally) as UUCP is now. If
> you're not going to use it interactively, why bother to "connect" over
> a dialup link with IP?

That's a good question. Luckily, I happen to have a good answer. It's, um,
right here. Hold on...

Because what I describe is the base fallback position for PPP (expensive
phone lines, no IPC, no sockets), but it's the best you can get with g-proto.
If this is generally available, it will enable you to hook in to local
PPP (say, over a dedicated 9600 baud line across the room). That is, by
basing a new uucp on dialup-IP you provide a path to full IP.

If you have a full-service system, you could use PPP links to connect
sites in a virtual uucp. And if you've got a socket implementation you
could (for example) piggyback telnet sessions or conventional FTP over
the UUCP session.

Here at Ferranti, we have several machines that are only available via UUCP.
Having a UUCP based on PPP would let us bring them closer into the main
network.

So, UUCP locks you into intermittent homogenous connections. IP lets you
work like UUCP, but also provides the option of expanding to continuous
heterogenous connections more in keeping with today's networks. It's a
superset.
-- 
`-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter at ficc.uu.net>.
 'U`  Also <peter at ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter at sugar.lonestar.org>.
"It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier
and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin at krypton.sgi.com