tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ The Death of X.400

X.400 over TCP/IP ▻

Number of OUs

In article <788119752.16976.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@mhs>,
<pays@faugeres.inria.fr> wrote:
>> PMJI, but if you use all four OU fields, isn't that going to make
>> an awful long address?  Apart from anything else, it would be fun
>> gatewaying that to the Internet:  j.doe@ou4.ou3.ou2.ou1.org.prmd.admd.cc
>
>Who said that a 4OUs ORaddress should be mapped onto such a thing?

Well, you don't *have* to do it this way.  But in most cases you need a
1:1 mapping between the Internet domain name and the O/R domain, so...

>  more probably the some ORaddress (with all 4 OUs) would map onto
>   a j.doe@org.cc

...your RFC 1327 gateway is going to need one mapping table entry for
every set of OUs that are used.

Most of the time, it's much better just to have one or a few mapping
table entries (going down to O, or OU1, perhaps) and let the remaining
OUs tack onto the front of the Internet domain name.

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin        | "System V wasn't going to go away just because POSIX
Public IP Exchange | said so.  (More's the pity.)" -- Henry Spencer

Original headers:

From: tim@pipe.pipex.net (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Number of OUs
Date: 23 Dec 1994 16:19:28 -0000
Organization: PIPEX, 216 Science Park, Cambridge, England
Message-ID: <3detag$isk@pipe.pipex.net>
References: <788119752.16976.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@mhs>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ The Death of X.400

X.400 over TCP/IP ▻