Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!PUCC!GETTES From: GETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l Subject: Re: :routtab tableformat for NJEF Message-ID: Date: 9 Feb 90 15:51:06 GMT Sender: Node Management Discussion Reply-To: Node Management Discussion Organization: Princeton University, CIT Network Systems Lines: 43 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 8 Feb 90 14:03:02 PST from <1GTLEJS@CALSTATE.BITNET> On Thu, 8 Feb 90 14:03:02 PST Ed Skochinski said: >local parameters, then you *must* remove O=nn." Acceptance of this would >be a Pyrrhic victory. It's just dumb luck that JES2's local part is >cosmetically clean and NJEF is somewhat messy. I submit that the O=nn is not necessary either. This too could be handled by the table generating post-processing software for a pathalias map. > I should be VERY happy to receive a list >containing only two columns of data: A destination node name and a >neighboring node name to whom I can pass. You get this in a pathalias map, along with additional information of what the next hop is after the neighboring node, and so on. I believe this to be beneficial. >Eric's argument is excellent support of the format-independent table >proposed by Michael. However, GR creates configuration statements, >not just a tailored network snapshot. NJEF sites have as much right >to run-ready congiguration statements as do the rest. These configuration statements have been removed in the new GR. The current configuation statements in the current GENROUTS is simply a guideline. I like having something at the top of the routing table that says "these are the directly connected links..." which signifies how the routing table was generated. >We now treat :netsoft as informational only. This is obviously local >data, let's remove it. If I read the descriptions correctly, tags >:nodedesc, :machine, :system, and :remarkN are local. Keep them out of >BITEARN NODES. I assume that the wars over inclusion of these tags are >long since over. Why should we tolerate this local data, and at the same >time forbid information which enhances the service provided to a member's >site? My feeling is that there are various systems that run on BITNET, and unfortunately, due to lack of standards and specifications, these systems vary enough that it is absolutely necessary to know the type of system, software and machine in order to communicate with these various nodes (and to diagnose problems as well). I do not agree that this is "local" information. /mrg