home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Libris Britannia 4
/
science library(b).zip
/
science library(b)
/
PACKET
/
MBL514.ZIP
/
DOMAIN.6VV
< prev
next >
Wrap
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