Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.UK (Steve Kille)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: RFC-1148/2: Why is the gateway table mandatory?
Message-ID: <1728.667581072@UK.AC.UCL.CS>
Date: 26 Feb 91 15:20:27 GMT
Lines: 26
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of 26 Feb 91 12:16:19 +0000. <1991Feb26.085205.2717@ugle.unit.no>
Phone: +44-71-380-7294

I will try to make this clear in the revised 1148.  If you are not happy
with my text, we can continue the discussion then.


Steve

 >From:  harald.alvestrand@no.sintef.elab-runit
 >To:    ifip-gtwy@no.sintef.elab-runit
 >Subject: RFC-1148/2: Why is the gateway table mandatory?
 >Date:  26 Feb 91 12:16:19 GMT

 >Steve,
 >as the guru among the experts, could YOU give an explanation of why the
 >gateway table you propose will be mandatory rather than advisory?
 >That is, can you give at least one case where a gateway, connected to the
 >interconnected part of the Internet, will not be able to forward a message
 >in the correct direction when the gateway table is not present?

 >This message was POSTED - I will enjoy waiting for it to arrive in my
 >mailbox...


 >                   Harald Tveit Alvestrand
 >Harald.Alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no
 >C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=sintef;OU=elab-runit;S=alvestrand;G=harald
 >+47 7 59 70 94