| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3133.1 | Well, it is Friday afternoon | ZUR01::ASHG | Grahame Ash @RLE | Fri Feb 14 1997 15:30 | 5 |
| Probably a daft question . . . do you need to do the "rewriting"? What happens
if you just change the Routing instruction on the old address to point to the
new gateway?
grahame
|
| 3133.2 | 'Fraid Not! | SIOG::ras9.wro.dec.com::dub03.dbo.dec.com::McCorry | Tenors get women by the score | Sat Feb 15 1997 00:01 | 29 |
| That would be nice...
We only use routing instructions on 3 or 4 partial OR addresses. Each OR
address stem relates to a particular MS Mail PO.
The X.500 backbone consists of a number of MTAs one in P=ASSEMBLY.CA.GOV
and another in P=CA.GOV.
The new X.400 connector will be connected into the CA.GOV domain, but a
routing instruction in this domain routes anything for ASSEMBLY.CA.GOV
over to the other MTA, so we can't just arbitrarily change the routing.
The new addresses for the users will have P=CA.GOV anyway, and not
ASSEMBLY.CA.GOV, so the address would need to be modified en route.
Plus we want to retain the old address for consistency for a preiod of
time to be valid for connections to the other MTA.
It's real complicated (as you can tell from my feeble attempt to explain
it.)
I've found the answer to my original question anyway. It does work for
partial addresses (thus effectively doing in-line term substitution).
I'm now trying to be more creative with the aliases/rewrites!
K
|
| 3133.3 | More alias woes! | SIOG::ras8.wro.dec.com::dub03.dbo.dec.com::McCorry | Tenors get women by the score | Mon Feb 17 1997 23:22 | 45 |
| Hmmm. I've got a couple of more questions about the way aliases work.
I've actually got this all working properly now, but there are a few
questions that I'd like to field.
Maybe they're answered in the docs, but I don't have access to them all
right now, so I'll apologize in advance!
1. It seems that the OR address entry for the alias target must be
fully and explicitly created in the MTS directory. For example, if I was
aliasing:
C=US;A=ADMD;P=ASSEMBLY.CA.GOV;O=ASSEMBLY;OU1=ASMMS1;OU2=PO5
to
C=US;A=ADMD;P=CA.GOV;O=ASSEMBLY;OU1=ASMMS1;OU2=PO5
then I must have previously CREATEd the OR address for the alias target,
not even just part of the stem? Is this necessary? If no such fully
qualified address has previously been defined, then MAILbus 400 NDNs with
'no routing information'.
2. Partial address routing doesn't seem to operate on the alias target OR
address. In the example above, I have to define the routing instruction
on the *full* address: a routing instruction on OU1 for example doesn't
seem to work. It appears that the right-to-left traversal for OR address
matching isn't implemented when the address is a translated alias. Is
this as expected? Also, if there is no routing information defined on the
full alias target, but the full OR address is defined (as specified in 1
above), then MAILbus 400 reverts to the unaliased address in order to find
a routing instruction. Is this expected behaviour as well?
3. And finally, when the routing instruction has been found for the alias
target and the message begins to hurtle its merry way to its intended
recipient, the OR address of the recipient in the message is actually the
unaliased and original address, not the aliased form (I captured this
with an archive). So no actual "replacement" of addresses takes place,
just a temporary alias during routing. Is this correct too?
Like I said, I've got it all working given the above scenarios, I'm just
confused as to why some of these things happen.
Any comments appreciated.
Kieran
|
| 3133.5 | | ZUR01::ASHG | Grahame Ash @RLE | Tue Feb 18 1997 14:29 | 22 |
| Hi Kieran,
I suspect you'll only get a definitive answer to your questions from someone
with access to the code. But my understanding of an alias is that it's just
"another name for the same thing."
My guess would be that the MTA has your address to look up. It does so,
discovers it's an alias, and follows the link. It doesn't find the info there,
so it reverts to its address. I don't think it should be assumed that because
there's an alias at this point, that the higher entries can also be
equivalent. So it will (should?) start removing terms from the address on the
msg.
btw, the book (Planning) seems to hint very heavily that your redirection
strategy shouldn't work. It says Recipient Redirection (what you're trying to
achieve) should only be placed on full o/r addresses, and MD Redirection
(which is not what you want) is what goes on partial o/r entries.
So, see the first sentence above!
grahame
|
| 3133.6 | Strange... | SIOG::ras10.wro.dec.com::dub03.dbo.dec.com::McCorry | Tenors get women by the score | Wed Feb 19 1997 16:59 | 10 |
| Thanks Graham
Hmmm, I'm intrigued to find out if it shouldn't work the way that it
does. It's certainly solving my problems at the moment, but I'd like
to be doing it right, instead of exploiting some anomaly.
So, any takers then from Engineering?
K
|