Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!BIONET-20.ARPA!ROODE
From: ROODE@BIONET-20.ARPA (David Roode)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: relay problems
Message-ID: <12311604935.33.ROODE@BIONET-20.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 18-Jun-87 21:05:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: BIONET-2.12311604935.33.ROODE
Posted: Thu Jun 18 21:05:47 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jun-87 01:25:37 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 25

When we get mail from JANET sites that is relayed via BITNET, using
your host UKACRL.BITNET, reaching us on the Internet, we get a routing
through a pseudo host known as AC.UK .  This is not a valid Internet
host.  People have difficulty replying, and we have to tell them how
to compose a routing style of message.  However, when the JANET mail
flows through CS.UCL.AC.UK, we have no problem.

Questions:

What determines which type of routing a JANET host uses to reach U.S.
Internet hosts?  Which type of routing is the best use of resources?

Is AC.UK a valid BITNET hostname?  If so, we would recognize it as
such and route appropriately if it displayed as AC.UK.BITNET or
AC.UK.EARN .   This would not solve the problem for other
Internet hosts getting relayed messages from WISCVM.WISC.EDU
though.

The best thing would be if AC.UK were a valid Internet host name.
Many Internet domains register the domain itself as the name
of a host.  It seems like CS.UCL.AC.UK could be pointed to by
AC.UK, registered as a nickname.  This would be accomplished
by a CNAME record in the domain system and a listing in the NIC
host table.
know t'r