🚀 go-pugleaf

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.