Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.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 22:52:48 GMT Sender: Node Management Discussion Reply-To: Node Management Discussion Organization: Princeton University, CIT Network Systems Lines: 47 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 9 Feb 90 09:45:15 PST from <1GTLEJS@CALSTATE.BITNET> On Fri, 9 Feb 90 09:45:15 PST Ed Skochinski said: >The new GR does in fact produce run-ready configuration statements for its >supported table formats (or in the case of NJEF, comes close, and thus >this entire argument...). I would hope that it is somewhere documented that these "run-ready" statements are not recommended to be used and included for documentation purposes only (since they are commented records). >I would support a change to [the new] GR such that it produces an >agreed-upon generic format. Additionally, GR could add to each line (or >logical output record) sufficient data for a post-processor to create a >complete configuration statement. The sufficient data could come from >BITEARN NODES *only*, and would be based upon the :routtab.table-type. >The reason for this addition: it would be wasteful to require another >program to parse and extract BITEARN NODES tags while GR has already done >the task and can align it node-for-node upon output. This would satisfy This is getting ridiculous. Mike Hrybyk has already provided a bitnet version of pathalias that can deal with BITEARN NODES. I am not in favor of having GR generate a generic format. I recommend the use of pathalias because its routing algorithm works and has been proven over the last 7 or 8 years of its use. Obviously this point is of little concern to persons who do not deal with the network topology -- but it is of great concern to me. >Furthermore, with GR being written in Pascal, it would satisfy the lowest >common denominator criteria. Wrong. This criteria is not formally recognized. C is far more prevelant in the world today, and this is my opinion just as Pascal is yours. As I stated before, I believe the true LCD is FORTRAN, and I believe that this is not an option at this time. If you want to transform the pathalias C program into Pascal, fine. As for use of pathalias, at least in the US, I think it is time to either have a public referendum or decision by a higher authority. I do not believe that GR is the way to go. I believe pathalias is the right direction, especially considering the possible dynamics of the future. I feel I have clearly stated my case. I think it is at the point where enough explanation has been set forth where people can make their own decisions or at least ask appropriate questions. This is, of course, my opinion. /mrg