Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!tcp-ip
From: tcp-ip@ucbvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.tcp-ip
Subject: MILNET/ARPANET performance
Message-ID: <7579@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 16:19:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7579
Posted: Wed May 29 16:19:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 06:13:38 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 24

From: "Frank J. Wancho" <WANCHO@SIMTEL20.ARPA>

David,

You have a point.  Certainly MILNET host users should use MILNET TACs
where available.  (But, given a choice between a local call to an
ARPANET TAC and a long distance call by whatever service, including
Autovon, FTS, or even WATS, to a MILNET TAC, which would you choose?)

However, I *thought* the underlying Internet philosophy is to provide
"full" interconnectivity between networks.  I see no reason for
inadequate gateways to be excused on the pretense that they are for
mail only.

The problem is more pervasive when you consider the subnets with their
own inadequate gateways, all following the ARPA/MILNET model.  If the
ARPA/MILNET gateways are to be restricted to mail only, then using
them as "proven" developed models for other gateways is misleading, to
put it mildly.

There is something wrong, and just because it is more visible with
ARPA/MILNET "mail" gateways doesn't make it any less of a problem.

--Frank