Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!WNYOSI2.ARPA!dlove
From: dlove@WNYOSI2.ARPA
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  UUCP over TAC
Message-ID: <8807160219.AA19695@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 15 Jul 88 12:50:04 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 32

Paul Traina writes:

>>Pardon my ignorance,  but I'm confused about running uucp over TCP links.

>>My question is why?  The ftp/smtp/bsmtp interface seems much better for
>>handling files & mail, and for those who run it, the rsh interface seems
>>better than uux.  So, I ignorantly ask,  why do some folk run uucp over TCP?
>>There must be some sort of intelligent reason it was added...(?)

>>My only guess would be for folks running TCP terminal servers hooked into
>>dial-in/dial-out modems .. the remote site dials into the modem, goes via
>>tcp to the host, and runs uucp as if the modem was direct-connected to
>>the host.

>>Since I don't run 4.3 myself (Sun, where are you? Get real.) I don't have
>>the benefit of a 4.3 doc set to explain why I want TCP/UUCP.

Yes,  there is an intelligent reason for the question that addresses a 
specific problem.  The problem that is being addressed by lou@wnyosi2.arpa 
is that remote users who do not have host access to the MILNET need to be able 
to transfer files to a host on the MILNET.  These remote users are world-wide.  
Therefore,  UUCP via a TAC (therefore TELNET) is being explored,  not 
UUCP via TCP. 

We have tried Kermit via a TAC,  and are exploring UUCP as an alternative
solution.  Any other possible solutions to this problem would be greatly 
appreciated.

						Donnie R. Love
         					NetWorks One
						Washington Navy Yard
						Washington D.C.