Gateways to and from FidoNet Technical, Administrative, and Policy Considerations FSC-0034 Randy Bush 14 June 89 Copyright 1989, Randy Bush. All rights reserved. The right to distribute for non-commercial use is granted to the FidoNet Technical Standards Committee, provided that no fee is charged. This may be posted on FidoNet electronic BBSs which charge no fee for accessing this document. Any and all other reproduction or excerpting requires the explicit written consent of the author. What is a Gateway to/from FidoNet? ---- -- - ------- ------- -------- A gateway is a collection of software and procedures whereby net mail and/or echomail may be transferred between FidoNet and another computer communications network. Gateways are bi-directional, as folk always want to reply to others' mail. Gateways exist now. o There are a number of software packages for gating between uucp-based systems and FidoNet, the most well-known beingthe UFGATE shareware package. These packages gate both netmail and echomail, and are often used to provide FidoNet access to/from Internet via the uucp network. These tend to go through much effort to make FidoNet look as much like Internet as possible. As of this writing, about 25 uucp gateways are scattered around FidoNet. o Rhodes University has developed a complete system between a Cyber-based NOS network and FidoNet. This system handles both net mail and echomail, and is also strongly based on the Internet standards, and almost views FidoNet as a transport mechanism to get to/from Internet. It is used to gate a fairly localized cluster of mainframes to FidoNet at a single point, and has made special arrangements for further routing and forwarding of mail. o WWIVnet has developed gating software based on the ForDog package for the MS-DOS-based WWIV systems, and some other package for the Mac-based Tabby systems. The MS-DOS system uses Binkley or another FidoNet mailer handles the protocol transfers to make the WWIV system look like a FidoNet system to other FidoNet nodes. WWIVnet gates are said to be scattered around the US and Canada. o A number of FidoNet-based systems have been developed for various flavors of UN*X. These vary from encapsulated Fido-worlds within UN*X (i.e not true gates at all), to FidoNet front ends for UN*X mail systems. o RBBS-net seems to have developed gateway software for the MS-DOS-based BBS network, but I do not know enough to characterize it. All of these gateway systems can and are being run in a safe and cooperative fashion, and are providing a nice cross-cultural exchange with benefits for both sides of the gates. At this time, there are also other nets which, because they are based on technology similar to FidoNet, are dumping mail onto and taking mail off of FidoNet willy nilly, with little thought to the technical, administrative, or social consequences. Often, this is done with good intentions, not realizing they are providing a disservice to both nets. What are the Characteristics of a Good Gateway? ---- --- --- --------------- -- - ---- -------- Like good contracts, good gateways should be fair to both sides. There is the need to preserve both the technical and sociopolitical integrity of all parties to the transaction. Technically, both networks will have specifications and requirements for transfer protocols, message and echomail formats, control data files, etc. Beyond the borders of the gateway software, each universe should be completely and safely maintained. o Messages and echomail should completely conform in format and content to the technical specifications of each side of the gateway. o Addressing of messages and echomail should completely conform to that of the network in or through which the messages are traveling or resident at all times. o A normal user should be able to enter new messages destined for the other side of the gate and to reply to gated mail with relative ease. o If FidoNet uses a network A as an intermediate to get to/from a network B, or if network C uses FidoNet to get to/from network D, then the inter-net transitions should be auditable, but local customs and technalia of the intermediate network may not need always be enforced. Socially, the customs and fashions of each network should be maintained in that network. o There must be administrative liaison and control between the two networks so agreements may be made and enforced and disputes may be adjudicated. o If the networks being gated overlap geographically, then systems should not have to pay significant costs to move mail between the two networks when it is between two nodes that are in the same general locale. o Gating is not simple, technically or administratively. Unless each net anticipates significant use of the gateways, and the anticipated gain is seen as greater than the anticipated pain, then one side or the other may reasonably decline to do the necessary work. What Technical Standards Exist? ---- --------- --------- ------ Before we develop new specifications, social protocols, and standards, we should see what exists already. o FidoNet Technical Standards exist already for the data formats and the communication protocols for net mail and echomail. All conforming gateway systems mentioned above conform to these standards. These are named FSC-nnnn, or more recently FTS-nnnn. o The SRI-NIC has published standards for message formats and communication protocols that are used between a significant number of networks that already gate to each other. These are often referred to as the Internet standards and named RFCnnnn or IDEAnnnn. o The ISO and CCITT have standards for message formats and communication protocols which are used between a significant number of systems. These are based on X.nnn specifications, eg. X.400. Other standards undoubtedly exist and should be investigated by anyone desiring to build a gateway system. The game of 'my standard is better than yours' has been played for decades with no conclusion other then demonstrating the stupidity of war. What matters is that each net's standards are maintained within that net. What Administrative Standards Exist? ---- -------------- --------- ------ Most networks have formed administrative procedures and guidelines which regulate if and how other networks may gate to/from them. The most notable exception is the uucp/Usenet which, having no formalized administrative rules for anything else, imposes none on gateways. Before we recoil in horror, note that uucp/Usenet is three to four times the size of FidoNet, is over twice FidoNet's age, and has a significantly better signal- to-noise ratio. The SRI-NIC provides a procedure for registering Internet domains. A domain is somewhat like what we are considering a network. This Internet registration procedure ensures that the network has o administrative responsibility and control, and o at least two registered sites which provide address mapping for the netowrk being gated. FidoNet is a registered domain of Internet. Our domain is called fidonet.org. The administrative responsibility is the FidoNet IC's. The registered 'nameservers' are at lynx.cs.orst.edu and k9.cs.orst.edu, both at Oregon State University, though this is bending the two nameserver policy a bit. DECNET, ARPANET, ... all have applicable standards, but, as they are strictly limited to formal commercial relationships, they are of little interest here. What Administrative Policies are Needed by FidoNet? ---- -------------- -------- --- ------ -- -------- What does FidoNet really need to state in terms of administrative requirements on a network wishing to gate to/from FidoNet? FidoNet needs a means of ensuring that a formal relationship exists which may be used to negotiate technical standards between the two nets, internet adjudication of disagreements both technical and social, and enforcement of decisions. Similarly, the other network will likely want such assurances as well. Therefore an agreement should be reached stating: o who is administratively responsible, o who is technically responsible, o what technical and administrative documentation exists, and o both parties will abide by eachother's rules when in the other's house, and o how grievances are to be stated and adjudicated. In addition, it will be advisable for FidoNet to place some requirements on a network wishing to form official gateways. Some of these requirements and their motivations are: o If the other network geographically overlaps a significant portion of FidoNet, then the other net should be of sufficient size that gateways can likely be recruited in most areas where the nets overlap. Thus, systems should not have to pay significant costs to move mail between two nets that happen to be in the same locale. o If the other network geographically overlaps a significant portion of FidoNet, then there should, at a minimum, be gateways in each FidoNet zone where they overlap. o If the other network geographically overlaps more than one zone of FidoNet, then that net should have its own gateways between the zones, and not use FidoNet to move the burden of interzone PTT costs. o If the other network geographically overlaps a significant number of the regions in a FidoNet zone, then there should, at a minimum, be gateways in each FidoNet region where they overlap. o If the other network is geographically localized, then special arrangements may be made whereby there traffic is gated to/from FidoNet at one or more places by special arrangement as if the other network were a FidoNet node or local network (in the intra-FidoNet sense) itself. o Gating of net mail, i.e. user-to-user messages, must be implemented and easily used. Gating of Echomail is optional. o Mail must be bi-directional. If someone in the other net can send mail to a node/user on FidoNet, then that FidoNet node/user must be able to reply. o If echomail is gated, then, unless special circumstances are recognized by the responsible administrators, it must be gated bi-directionally. o If a conference is moderated (in the Usenet sense, similar to Dutchie's Conference Mail's moderation or GroupMail) on one network, then it should be moderated on all other networks, or at least the gateway into the network where it is moderated should ensure that correct moderation is done by forwarding or whatever is appropriate. For inter-net gateway systems in the process of formation, it is assumed that some of the above requirements may be waived during a startup period at the discretion of the administrative bodies. Observe that if FidoNet were to try to take a shortcut which has been suggested and simply require Intetnet registration of gating networks, then, of the current networks gating to FidoNet correctly (see above), only the Rhodes system could conform technically. Eg. the uucp gating packages gate to uucp which has no administrative center and is not registered with Internet. To require Internet registration would further neither the goals of Internet, nets wishing to gate to FidoNet, nor FidoNet itself. What Technical Requirements should FidoNet Place on Gating Systems? ---- --------- ------------ ------ ------- ----- -- ------ -------- Each network will have its own specifications for communication protocols, data formats, message conventions, addressing, etc. Though more generally used standards are to be preferred, what really matters is that each net be self- consistent and integritous and that gateway systems maintain that integrity. From the FidoNet perspective, the following attributes of a gateway system seem to be mandatory. o Conformance to FidoNet message format as specified in current FidoNet technical standards (eg. currently FSC-0001) must be maintained while messages are within FidoNet. o Information to assist message comprehension and processing by gateway systems and/or other networks may be contained within the message body, either hidden behind ^A lines or not. If such information is needed, then conformance to current Internet standards (eg. currently RFC822) is recommended. o The FidoNet message header must contain valid FidoNet addresses at all times the message is on FidoNet. Valid FidoNet addresses are addresses of specific FidoNet nodes in the current FidoNet nodelist. o The source and/or destination address in the other net should be embedded in the text body of the FidoNet message, either hidden behind ^A lines or not. Conformance to current Internet standards is recommended where appropriate, but addressing conventions in the other net may preclude this. o A message must contain sufficient information that the originating system and user may be easily determined. o A FidoNet sysop and/or normal FidoNet BBS user should be able to enter messages destined for users in the other network and reply to gated mail using current FidoNet software. o If echomail is gated, then the echo messages should conform to all current FidoNet standards for echomail. For example, currently an echomail message should: - have a correct tear line - have an origin line of the proper format with a FidoNet origin of the gating FidoNet node - have seenbys of only FidoNet nodes - have a path line that goes back at least to the gating node o If echomail is gated, then an echomail message must contain sufficient information that the system and user of origin may be trivially determined, whatever net may have originated it. o The origin of gated echomail should be determinable in a regular way sufficient that the gating software can provide easy construction of private net mail replies to echomail messages which would return to the echo messages's originator through the appropriate gateway, which may or may not be different than the gateway through which the echo message came. It is acknowledged that this may require hand editing on the part of the user composing the reply. o If echomail is gated, and the other net has no equivalent, it may use net mail and/or net mail mailing lists. Messages coming into FidoNet from this type of net mail or mailing list should properly gate into the appropriate echomail conference, and replies should work correctly as well. Conclusion ---------- It is hoped that, given a philosophy and guidelines such as those outlined in this paper, FidoNet will continue to expand its links to other networks to the benefit of FidoNet and networking in general. It is hoped that this paper will be of some help to those constructing gateways to/from FidoNet, and to the administrators of FidoNet and other nets who are considering gating to/from FidoNet. This paper, the purported facts contained, and the philosophy espoused are the sole responsibility of the author, and are quite likely technically incorrect and are undoubtedly morally bankrupt. Should you have constructive correction or criticism, please contact: Randy Bush FidoNet: 1:105/6 1:105/42 randy@dawggon.fidonet.org uucp: { mcvax!uunet, tektronix }!oresoft!dawggon!randy Internet: randy@oresoft.uu.net randy@m2xenix.uucp Telemail: RBush FAX: +1 (503) 245-8449 TWX 910-464-4779 ---------- FidoNet is a trademark of Tom Jennings and Fido Software, to whom we all owe much thanks for the origin and spirit of FidoNet. DECNET is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation. MS-DOS is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation.