Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains Subject: Re: Proposed extensions to MX records. Message-ID: <1991Apr6.012220.377@mp.cs.niu.edu> Date: 6 Apr 91 01:22:20 GMT References: <9104051527.AA18234@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> Distribution: inet Organization: Northern Illinois University Lines: 27 In article <9104051527.AA18234@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> dan@SCI.CCNY.CUNY.EDU (Dan Schlitt) writes: >The second problem is that the DNS translates names to numbers and doesn't >have anything to do with routing. This problem is really about routing. >Is there a solution within the realm of routing without bringing the >DNS directly into it? Could we drag the solution back into the domain of >assigned numbers? Is it possible that autonomous system numbers or something >like them could be a better way to attack the problem? (Said by someone >who knows and wants to know little about EGP and friends.) People keep arguing that this is about routing. It isn't. It is about gatewaying mail. The current MX record is very good for gatewaying mail between Internet and a network using say UUCP transport. It creates problems when you want to gateway mail between two networks both using the Internet protocols. A couple of us are currently looking at another alternative for solving the same problem. If it survives a few more days thought it will be tossed around to some who have commented on this topic. If it still looks good it will be introduced to namedroppers / comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains for further discussion. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940