Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!kth!draken!tut!jh From: jh@tut.fi (Juha Hein{nen) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso Subject: Re: TCP/IP vs. OSI Performance Message-ID: Date: 27 Mar 89 09:08:36 GMT References: <529@skep2.ATT.COM> <9882@megaron.arizona.edu> <14957@bellcore.bellcore.com> <9896@megaron.arizona.edu> Sender: News@tut.fi Organization: Tampere Univ of Technology Lines: 21 In-reply-to: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu's message of 27 Mar 89 02:09:13 GMT In article hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: We are a member of NSFnet, so we don't bother to keep track of the others. etc. The routing table at Rutgers looks sort of like this: Euronet -> jvnc-euro-gw Japannet -> sri-japan-gw NASAnet -> ames-nasa-gw ARPAnet -> mills-1200baud-fuzzball-link nsfnet -> jvnc-nsfnet-gw [default used for NSFnet nets we don't know] nysernet -> columbia-gw The principle of your proposal sounds ok. However, it has to allow for backup etc. purposes more that one gateway between two geograhical nets and preferences in using those gateways for various target networks. Maybe this is what you meant with "asking more information" from the known gateway. -- -- Juha Heinanen, Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland jh@tut.fi (Internet), tut!jh (UUCP), jh@tut (Bitnet)