X.400 routing decisions

" (Tony Genovese)" <genovese@ophelia.nersc.gov> Sat, 20 March 1993 01:20 UTC

X400-Received: by mta mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu in /PRMD=XNREN/ADMD= /C=US/; Relayed; Fri, 19 Mar 1993 18:36:51 +0000
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 18:36:51 +0000
X400-Originator: cargille@cs.wisc.edu
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=XNREN/ADMD= /C=US/; mhs-relay..457:20.02.93.00.36.51]
Priority: Non-Urgent
DL-Expansion-History: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu ; Fri, 19 Mar 1993 18:36:51 +0000;
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: " (Tony Genovese)" <genovese@ophelia.nersc.gov>
Message-ID: <9303200036.AA24555@ophelia.nersc.gov>
To: Allan.Cargille@cs.wisc.edu
Cc: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu
Subject: X.400 routing decisions

Hi Allan,

	I think you did a very good job of analyzing my problem. At first I
did not force all the available x.400 routes. My domain and channel tables
looked very simular to yours. But with Felix's tool I was able to generate
over 400 smtp to X.400 routes.  This, to me and ESnet, makes X.400 viable, 
because we are an SMTP shop. Without these routes we would do very little 
x.400 traffic.

	Now from your analysis to support this we will need yet another
Perl script. 

	- One to handle the X.400 -> SMTP valid routes
	- One to handle the SMTP -> X.400 valid routes

These should be incorperated into Felix's tool.

	I am afraid I do not feel confortable with putting this Item on
the Agenda - for reasons you and Urs point out. But I consider this to be
a vital subject.  I beleave I have come along way in understanding the
issues because of your and Urs excellent arguments.  I am a little thick
and do not beleave this issue is settled. For one thing we have Ideas with
out coded solutions. We can continue the discussion on the list.  Of course
since I will be gone for a couple of week, you most likely will be able to 
get some real work done :-)

Tony...

X.400 routing decisions (Tony Genovese)