Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!baird!jim From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) Newsgroups: uk.misc,eunet.followup,comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Internet routing Europe - USA -} Europe... Message-ID: Date: 6 Sep 90 10:24:04 GMT References: <1990Aug30.091435.1982@ircam.ircam.fr <6190@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1213@vision.UUCP> <1216@vision.UUCP> Sender: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland. Lines: 24 In-reply-to: chris@vision.UUCP's message of 5 Sep 90 12:13:33 GMT In article <1216@vision.UUCP> chris@vision.UUCP (Chris Davies) writes: Sorry, I should have stated my point more clearly. I was aware of this. But I think I'm correct in stating that a direct connection to JANET (as such) by a commerical site is not permissible (and so all traffic must go through a gateway - thus mail only, in effect). Yes and no. A commercial site cannot get a direct connection, meaning an X.25 line straight from a JANET switch. If the site already has PSS, they can use Coloured Book protocols to make connections to JANET sites via one of many JANET/PSS gateways*. These connections may be TS29 or X.29 for terminal traffic or NIFTP for mail and news transfer or JTMP for remote job entry. [* Calling the box with a JANET and a PSS connection a gateway is a bit misleading. It doesn't really perform protocol conversion (save for minimal TS29/X.29 translation), so strictly speaking it's not a gateway. It's more of a router, simply routing X.25 packets between the two networks. However, Internet people call routers "gateways", so if JANET was part of the Internet, the name would be correct!] Jim