X.400 Naming Issues

"/R=ALFIE/R=AM/U=LASICH1/L=ATC D-ID/TN=337(221)-5702/FFN=Mark D. Lasich/"@mrgate.al.alcoa.com Thu, 14 January 1993 18:26 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25434; 14 Jan 93 13:26 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25430; 14 Jan 93 13:26 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01116; 14 Jan 93 13:27 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.02819-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 14 Jan 1993 17:02:57 +0000
Received: from id1.al.alcoa.com by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.07090-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 14 Jan 1993 17:02:43 +0000
Received: with SMTP-MR; Thu, 14 Jan 1993 11:57 EST
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 12:04:00 -0500
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by ID1.AL.ALCOA.COM
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "/R=ALFIE/R=AM/U=LASICH1/L=ATC D-ID/TN=337(221)-5702/FFN=Mark D. Lasich/"@mrgate.al.alcoa.com
Subject: X.400 Naming Issues
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Message-id: <8036571114011993/A07671/ALDID5/117172F90E00*@ID1.AL.ALCOA.COM>
Autoforwarded: false
Content-type: TEXT
Importance: high
Priority: non-urgent
Sensitivity: Company-Confidential
UA-content-id: 117172F90E00
X-Hop-count: 1

Sorry to revert to X.400 when the whole discussions of late are focusing 
on X.500. However:

We are in the process of determining an X.400 naming recommendation 
for our entire corporation. Of course the obvious fields are no problem 
(Country, ADMD, PRMD and even Organization). The real problems 
come in the Organizational Units. I know the fewer the better, but the 
problem we have to how to handle having multiple mail servers at one 
site (especially when trying to setup an X.400 backbone capable of 
supporting multi-vendor X.400 Email systems)?

For example, if I wanted to install small scale, low cost servers at my site, 
I might need 3-4 mail servers to handle the 1400 people I have here. To 
avoid the need to storing the addresses of each person on every server, 
I would like to route to the specific server based on one of the 

ORG_UNIT1 seems likely to have as a location specifier, ATC for my 
site, so that would be the same for each server. Current thinking has us 
leaning to "naming" our servers in ORG_UNIT2 as PAA, PAB and PAC 
(after our state, PA). On this field we would route to the appropriate 

To finally get to the question: does anyone have any recommendations 
on this? It this a reasonable approach? It seems as though many of the 
organizations that have implemented X.400 use only one ORG_UNIT. 
Do these people have one "grand server" (with a huge directory) that 
then routes messages internally, are they mapping to a proprietary Email 
solution, or how have they overcome this problem?

Any information would be very helpful - if this conversation is not 
germaine to this list, please Email me directly. Thanks:

-Mark D. Lasich
 Alcoa Technical Center (ATC)

Opinions stated are those of the author, any similarity to actual people or 
situations is purely coincidental.
  • X.400 Naming Issues  "/R=ALFIE/R=AM/U=LASICH1/L=ATC D-ID/TN=337(221)-5702/FFN=Mark D. Lasich/"