"complaining"?  I had thought my observations were something more along lines of "bewailing".  The difference?  It's not that Tops-20 doesn't do something, which would be complaining.  It's that I don't have the sources to do something about it.  How about whining? 😁

Seriously, because I have monitor and CUSP sources, I have been able to fix a lot of bugs in Tops-20's DECnet implementation and related software and also add enhancements.  What does "a lot" mean?  By my count, 74, so far.  I was really getting on a roll before I fell into the Kermit-20 NRT black hole.

You are, of course, entirely correct about the Tops-10/Tops-20's DECnet implementation only supporting end-node and level-1 router, yet this wasn't quite what I was getting at.  What I had in mind was taking the information that Tops-20 discards in the router HELLO message and putting it into a table so that this area information could be queried.  It doesn't matter that there is no JSYS interface to query it with, I can't update NCU to have a user interface.

The reason I've been thinking about areas is that I have been wondering about implementing changes to make Tops-20 be a level two router.  Only having Phase II NCU to work with is what I would call an 'unfortunate' hurdle.

---

On 9/10/22 7:34 PM, Peter Lothberg wrote: 

TommyT was complaining that he could not get area info from T10/T20 that's because it can either be end-node or level-1 router, not level 2 router.