Simtel MSDOS 1992 September/Simtel20_Sept92.cdr/msdos/packet/mbl514.arc/DOMAIN.6VV

Text File | 1988-08-10 | 5KB | 127 lines

[44344] PY
Path: W3IWI!N6VV
Date: 10 Aug 88 06:21:58 Z
From: N6VV@N6VV
To: W3IWI
Subject: Routing Designators

Hank,

  With the introduction of the Hierarchical Forward system which you
  are currently implementing I have been thinking about the content
  of the new fields you are implementing. Besides solving the "lazy
  Sysop" ZIP forwarding controversy currently brewing in Norcal, it
  presents us with both new opportunities and new problems. Some
  guidelines need to be established quickly before we have everyone
  "inventing" standards for routing designators. It is important that
  this is done on the front end since some kind of standard will have
  to be implemented and all BBSs educated so that stations can modify
  their forwarding file to support the new capabilities that your
  enhancement provide.

  I have more interest in this than most people since I am currently
  receiving the traffic for the Pacific, Asia and sometimes Europe for
  forwarding thru AX4BBS. In general I am not too interested in North
  American forwarding schemes since I am sure that almost everyone will
  adopt your proposal set out in you example. Thus:

       W6ABC @ W0RLI.CA

  Will undoubtely be accepted as the way to do it. State based forwarding
  will gain general acceptance and will make all of our lives much
  simpler. I am concerning about setting up some proposed standards for
  out of country forwarding. This is not only because I am currently
  responsible for a good bulk of it but because the I'm sure that as
  the PACSATs come on-line there may be increase opportunity for
  internationally routed traffic. We should try to work out some
  standards now and give them a work out in the international HF
  forwarding arena to see how they work.

  I am quite familiar with commercial standards setting procedures as
  I am a member of a number of standards orgainizations including
  ANSI and ISO. My company is involved in the international message
  software business thru what is known as ANSI X.12 and the EDIFACT
  standard which are used for EDI or Electronic Data Interchange.

  I would like your comments on this proposal:

  We agree to a geographical structure which would involve getting
  the traffic to successively better defined areas. For international
  traffic forwarding this currently involves getting it to at least the
  right continent. Thus I propose using a 2 letter code to designate
  continental areas. I will explain why 2 later. I have done some
  research into possible continental codes and cannot find any official
  designators that have wide acceptance so propose that we could adopt
  what would be generally accepted and recognizable codes such as:

  NA North America
  SA South America
  EU Europe
  AF Africa
  AS Asia
  PA Pacific (Not actually a continent but different from Asia and
              Australia. Includes much of my traffic.)
  AU Australia

 As it turns out all AF,AS,PA and AU traffic comes now to N6VV. I also
 get traffic for EU but have only seen 3 pieces of traffic returned
 from Europe thru Asia so I'm not sure how effective that path is.

  The next level would be country code and here there is a widely
  accepted international standard for country codes. It is published
  by The International Standards Oranization (ISO) and is used in
  virtually every standard electronic document and sporting event
  or international gathering. At the Olympics this 3 character
  code is used on scoreboards to denote country. It is found in
  ISO Standard 3166 more properly known as ISO-3166-1981(E/F).
  This document is printed in Geneva Switzerland but I happen to have
  it in my possesion in both printed and electronic form.

  Some country codes are:

  Australia     AUS
  Belgium       BEL
  Canada        CAN
  Denmark       DNK
  France        FRA
  Germany,East  DDR
  Germany,West  DEU
  Italy         ITA
  Japan         JPN
  New Zealand   NZL
  UK            GBR
  US            USA

Using this scheme traffic for Japan would AT LEAST have the following:

    JA4XYZ @ JA1KSO.JPN.AS

Further divisions below the country level would be at the option of
country organizers or groups but some kind of international standard
needs to be proposed for adoption. In the case of Japan you site the
Nets and prefecture division which is similar to our state subdivision.

Mail from abroad could thus be properly addressed :

  W6ABC @ N6VV.CA.USA.NA

 As I mentioned I selected 2 character continent codes to avoid
 confusion with similar 3 character country codes.

 The key here is that you are providing tremendous capabilities to
the packet community for increased efficency in traffic forwarding.
I think it is important to discuss the content of the new fields so
that we can quickly come to some general agreement on how these
capabilities will be used.

I would be happy to work with you on this in what ever way you would
like. I could provide a file of the ISO-3166 country codes for inclusion
in the release. I would be happy to help you write documentation for
this portion of the system. Please let me know what you think.

I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this message to Tom
W3IWI because of the potential implications for the PACSAT program.

Lew N6VV