Annex G

Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC rrroy at ATT.COM
Sat Sep 5 19:38:30 EDT 1998


Pete,
Thanks. I like that.
-santo

        ----------
        From:  Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell at BT-SYS.BT.CO.UK]
        Sent:  Friday, September 04, 1998 2:37 PM
        To:  ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
        Subject:  Re: No root node

        Santo,

        In general, to a first order approximation, I would expect a fully
        meshed arrangement of 'country' border elements.  However I would
see
        the fine detail of the structure being down to who people have
        arrangements for resolving addresses with.  For example, BT might go
to
        AT+T to resolve all North and South American numbers, and AT+T might
        come to BT for all European numbers.  I could also see that
        opportunistic companies could set up global clearing houses that
would
        handle address translation for outfits that haven't been able to
        establish their own knowledge of all the borders such as ISPs, or
        corporates.  This would look like a root node to the people that
used
        it, but it would be used purely as a commercial expedient and not
        mandated by the way the standard works.

        On the issue of France moving its entry point to Lyon for the week,
I
        think we have to allow France to have more than one entry point.
After
        all, Paris could all of a sudden slide into the Seine, and the
press, if
        nobody else, would still want to make calls into France to find out
        what's going on.  By having multiple entry points, the French can
turn
        off their Paris BE for a while and switch on their Lyon one, and if
the
        data didn't propagate around the system for a while it wouldn't
really
        matter too much.

        Pete
        =================================
        Pete Cordell
        BT Labs
        E-Mail: pete.cordell at bt-sys.bt.co.uk
        Tel: +44 1473 646436
        Fax: +44 1473 645499
        =================================


        >----------
        >From:  Santo Wiryaman[SMTP:swiryaman at VIDEOSERVER.COM]
        >Sent:  04 September 1998 17:29
        >To:    ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
        >Subject:       Re: No root node
        >
        >Hi All,
        >
        >I am not at all opposed to eliminating the root domain.  A couple
of
        >questions for Pete and the group:
        >
        >1.     Are you suggesting that at the national level the border
elements
        >are fully meshed together, or alternatively arranged in a big ring
as
        >Radhika is suggesting?
        >2.     If so, when a new country "goes on-line" endpoints in the
new
        >country would not be reachable until the information is propagated
in
        >this fully meshed database (or inserted in the ring).
        >3.     Same if, say France, had to switch its National H.323 Border
Element
        >from Paris to Lyons for one week.
        >4.     Are you open to the idea of a global clearing house to
resolve the
        >address of border elements of countries which are currently not
listed
        >in the fully-meshed database.
        >
        >Regards,
        >
        >Santo Wiryaman
        >Videoserver
        >
        >
        >----------
        >From:  Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell at BT-SYS.BT.CO.UK]
        >Sent:  Thursday, September 03, 1998 10:20 AM
        >To:  ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
        >Subject:  No root node
        >
        >Dear All,
        >
        >Apologies for not being on the last call, but...
        >
        >I feel one really important issue with Santo's contribution is that
we
        >must remove the root domain.  Having such a concept would give
        >politicians and lawyers far too much work!!!  I believe the notes
that
        >I
        >put forward would allow the root node to be removed, and based on
        >comments I heard from Jim, I believe what he is proposing would
allow
        >this too.
        >
        >Regards,
        >
        >Pete
        >=================================
        >Pete Cordell
        >BT Labs
        >E-Mail: pete.cordell at bt-sys.bt.co.uk
        >Tel: +44 1473 646436
        >Fax: +44 1473 645499
        >=================================
        >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4477 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/19980904/2362c489/attachment-0006.bin>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list