9 Dec
2021
9 Dec
'21
5:52 p.m.
On Dec 9, 2021, at 4:09 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt
at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2021-12-09 08:29, Mark J. Blair wrote:
Hmm. Interesting. I know that if you only give one number on a phase IV node, it will
assume it's in the current area, or if area is sortof not defined, then it's in
area 1.
You seem to have it understand that it was in area 2. How did that happen?
It would suggest that you managed to correctly enter a full phase IV address.
It prompted me for an address in the range 1-1023, but I wasn't paying close attention
and I typed in "2.617". I thought that maybe it blindly accepted the string and
got confused, so I ran NETCONFIG again and typed in "617". That gave me the same
errors, but I didn't happen to copy the error messages at that stage.
On Dec 8,
2021, at 11:18 PM, Supratim Sanyal <supratim at riseup.net> wrote:
Looks like it. The lowest I could go so far is 31.31 (XLIV) @ 4.4. We should try 3.4+
with the key sometime.
I tried 3.5 with the license installed, and then upgraded it
to 3.7 and tried again. It asks for an address in the range 1..1023, but I didn't see
any way to specify an area. When I tried starting the network in any of them, I got errors
like:
> $ @startnet
> %RUN-S-PROC_ID, identification of created process is 0001000E
> %OPCOM, 8-DEC-2021 18:33:36.97, message from user DECNET
> DECnet starting
> %NCP-I-NMLRSP, listener response - Invalid parameter value, Maximum address
> Executor node = 2.617 (PUGGLE)
>
> %RUN-S-PROC_ID, identification of created process is 0001000C
> %NCP-I-NMLRSP, listener response - Invalid parameter value, Maximum address
> Executor node = 2.617 (PUGGLE) I'd guess it is the related to the error you got
on 3.5 and 3.7. And that seems to have come from a machine with the address 2.699.
2.699 is my PyDECnet router that connects to Robert.
I suspect you might get even 3.5 working. But you need
to go into NCP and change a thing.
At least with RSX, you have a parameter that tells which is the highest node number it
should handle, and if you see, or configure, a number higher than that, you'll get
some kind of error similar to what you have described above.
Aha! I will look for the maximum address parameter and give it another try when I have a
chance. Maybe that parameter was just set low by default in the VMS versions which gave me
those errors.
If I can get a 3.x release running on HECNET, that would be neat.
--
Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net>
https://www.nf6x.net/