12 Apr
2019
12 Apr
'19
2:17 a.m.
On 2019-04-12 02:02, Paul Koning wrote:
Well, that is obviously not what RSX shows...
And I doubt any system do. Because a node can never have any ideas what
nodes are reachable in other areas. Which is exactly the thing about
23.1023.
But I guess you could claim that 23.1023 is not *known* to be reachable.
But RSX also show node that are known not to be reachable, and without
names, if they have counters associated. Just tested that with Mim.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Apr 11, 2019, at 7:45 PM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2019-04-12 01:28, Supratim Sanyal wrote:
It might be but it should not be. The DECnet architecture specifies precisely what the
term means.
Start with "active nodes": that means every node known to be reachable.
Given that, "known nodes" is defined as the union of active nodes and named
nodes. So a nameless node is known if it is shown as reachable by routing data (or by
having an active adjacency), but not otherwise. Johnny - if I remember right, I have seen nodes
with no names show up at http://mim.update.uu.se/hecnet without names in brackets, for my
nodes when I haven?t told you to add them yet, or others too. no?
"Known nodes" is a tricky thing. It might also be different for different OSes.