harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) (02/22/91)
Steve asked for discussions about RFC-1148/2 to be on this list, so I comply.....this is a spinoff from a thread on RARE-WG1 and RD-MHS-Managers. Harald Tveit Alvestrand UNINETT postmaster Forwarded message: ================== Date: Fri, 22 Feb 1991 12:26:40 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no> In-Reply-To: <1749.667221350@UK.AC.UCL.CS> To: Steve Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Cc: Urs Eppenberger <Eppenberger@verw.switch.ch>, "RARE Working Group 1" <RARE-WG1@SWITCH.ch>, MHS Managers <rd-mhs-managers@rare.no> Subject: Re: RFC 987 mapping and DDA usage Message-ID: <2868*harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no> It's two cents' time again..... Steve et al, it seems to me that the proposed "gateway list" is something that is NOT as critical as the RFC-987 mapping tables, and that the coordination may even be advisory, not mandatory like the tables. The reason is: - If I get a message that I have to map into DD, and use my own GWY address to do it, the reply will just have a longer path; nothing will break. - If another guy gets a message that "might" have used my gateway's address and uses his own, it may send the reply on a long trip, but still nothing will break (as long as both domains are reasonably interconnected). This is on the assumption that RFC-1148/2 is deployed in a network with reasonably full interconnectivity on both X.400 and RFC-822 sides. So, can we agree that gateway tables, like source route strippers, are an OPTIMIZATION feature and not a CRITICAL feature? If we can do that, I think that the noise will die down a bit.... Harald A ========================= End of forwarded message.