Proposed Modification to the Gateway Agreement Between
WWIVnet and FidoNet(r) via the "NetSEX" Program
Steven Furber
1:105/50@fidonet
Information
This FSC is being distributed to members of the FidoNet(r)
community in order to solicit their reactions to the
proposals contained in it. While the issues discussed may
not be directly relevant to the problems of FidoNet, they
may be interesting to implementers. Distribution is
unlimited.
---
0.0) A QUICK INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF INTENT
The request for a gateway between WWIVnet and FidoNet through
a program called NetSEX was sent in to Randy Bush (1:105/6)
approximately a month ago. During that time there have been
many questions pertaining to NetSEX that I feel are relevent
to the proposed gateway between WWIVnet and FidoNet.
The major questions that I feel needs to be dealt with are:
Will it be possible for WWIV Technology Networks to use
the NetSEX gateway, and if so: will a seperate gateway
agreement be necessary?
Will it be possibile for WWIV BBSes that are not in
WWIVnet or WWIV Technology Networks to use NetSEX to
interface their BBS with FidoNet?
The current gateway proposal that I have sent in pertains
only to WWIVnet and FidoNet. What I would like to do is have
that policy be between FidoNet and a "NetSEX-Project" that
will keep a list of who's using NetSEX, what their FidoNet
address is, what their WWIV Technology Network addresses are
(for the NetSEX node and BBS node), and if they gateway to a
WWIV Technology Network: which one.
To support my reasoning I will discuss each question a bit
and explain my proposal.
1.0) WILL IT BE POSSIBLE FOR WWIV TECHNOLOGY NETWORKS TO USE
THE NetSEX GATEWAY, AND IF SO: WILL A SEPERATE GATEWAY
AGREEMENT BE NECESSARY?
There have been several proposed-alternatives to WWIVnet that
be WWIV Technology Networks. Various planners from these
networks have asked whether or not they would be able to use
NetSEX to gateway between FidoNet and their proposed
networks, and if so what steps would need to be taken.
These proposed networks would be using BBSLIST.NET (a list of
all nodes in the network, similar to FidoNet's NODELIST) and
CONNECT.NET (a listing of all nodes in the BBSLIST.NET file
and how they connect to one another-- a topology map) files
that are independent of WWIVnet. They would be using their
own nodenumbering schemes (however still be restricted to the
65k maximum).
There were various possible things offered by these people
that would possily work, but in the end my response has been
that the current proposed policy between WWIVnet and FidoNet
is between those two networks, and if they were to gateway
between their non-WWIVnet WWIV Technology Networks they would
need to approach the FTSC for an agreement.
1.1) WILL THERE BE ANY POSSIBILITIES FOR WWIV BBSes THAT ARE
NOT IN WWIVnet OR WWIV TECHNOLOGY NETWORKS TO USE NetSEX TO
INTERFACE THEIR BBS WITH FidoNet?
There are several WWIV BBSes that are interested in
connecting with FidoNet but are not interested in joining
WWIVnet (which is the only network currently operating with
WWIV Technology). Of the several people who have asked, all
of them are running FourDog but would like to get the speed
of NetSEX and the correct placing of Netmail into mailboxes
as opposed to the method FourDog uses.
It is possible to run NetSEX on a non-WWIVnet BBS by creating
the data files for a WWIV Technology Network that contain
their NetSEX node and their "WWIVnet" node. They would
essentially be faking out the software by running a network
consisting of two nodes.
This question I have been unable to sufficiently answer.
While this situation would involve someone that only belongs
to FidoNet, it would still be using software designed to
gateway and it would be gatewaying messages from FidoNet to a
WWIV Technology Network that consisted of one node.
2.0) MY PROPOSED AGREEMENT
What I would like to do is provide all sides with the best
possible solution that will privide all sides with that same
solution. As it stands now, the proposed gateway is between
FidoNet and WWIVnet. What I would rather see is a policy
between FidoNet and an entity called "The NetSEX Project"
that would keep track of where NetSEX is being used to
interface and/or gateway with FidoNet. To be more specific,
and entity that would do the following:
a) keep track of all WWIV-BBSes running NetSEX simply to
interface with FidoNet. These would be systems that are
not in WWIVnet or any other WWIV Technology Network. A
listing of their FidoNet address, node number used for
the BBS, and node number used for the NetSEX address
would be kept.
b) keep track of all WWIV-BBses running NetSEX that are
connected to a WWIV Technology Network. A listing of
their FidoNet address, the name of the WWIV Technology
Network they belong to, what address they use in the
WWIV Technology Network, and the address in the WWIV
Technology Network they are using for their NetSEX node
would be kept.
c) do monthly or bi-monthly tests of all NetSEX nodes and
create a conference (EchoMail for FidoNet, Sub for WWIV
systems) to support and discuss NetSEX.
d) have a reserved range in the WWIV Technology Network
for NetSEX (and/or other gateways) nodes, and have
someone in that network serve as a liason between the
"NetSEX Project" and the WWIV Technology Network.
e) upload all of the files on one or more FidoNet systems
where the various members of the FTSC who work with
gateways can track down information they may need.
Given these actions, the following is hoped to be
accomplished:
a) permit non-WWIV Technology Network systems to use
NetSEX while being covered by an agreement between
FidoNet to do so.
b) permit non-WWIVnet yet still WWIV Technology Networks
to use NetSEX while being covered by an agreement
between FidoNet and the "NetSEX Project" to do so.
c) keep an index of all systems using NetSEX, and keep a
listing of what WWIV Technology Networks are accessable
through FidoNet.
d) offer an easy-access place for people to get
information pertaining to NetSEX, FidoNet, and WWIV
Technology Networks.
This proposed entity, the "NetSEX Project" would be an entity
existing off of FidoNet. I offer to do all of the data
collection and send the information to the people who would
like it (providing it is of reasonable cost phone the phone
connections).
There are many benefits, and no drawbacks that I can see.
3.0) AN END NOTE
I am expecting that this will be approved, or even if it is
it will not be without some form of modification. It seems to
me that this would be the best way to handle the NetSEX
gateway without spending a great deal of time approving
individual networks that are based around the same network
technology. This proposal was made from the point of view of
someone that are working from within FidoNet.
