Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!NIHCU!RAF From: RAF@NIHCU.BITNET (Roger Fajman) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l Subject: Re: Routing tables from pathalias Message-ID: Date: 10 Feb 90 01:11:51 GMT Sender: Node Management Discussion Reply-To: Node Management Discussion Lines: 28 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway > nodenumbers in a generic table is justified. Additionally, I think > I can argue that if we did not need nodenumbers to break ties on BITNET, > then the :NODENUM tag is no longer necessary since this too would be > a "local" configuration problem. If I am wrong on this -- I am sure > Roger or LDW will be quick to correct me ;-). As far as JES2 is concerned, node numbers are local information in the sense that they are used only internally within JES2 and do not appear in the NJE protocol. It is important that they not change from month to month, as they are used to queue files within JES2. But maybe we should step back a little here and think about what the purpose is in all this. Personally, I think we should encourage sites to generate their own routing tables. To do that we need to provide the tools, or make them as easy to write as possible. If that requires a little more information in BITEARN NODES, then so be it as long as it does not place an excessive burden on the network administration (BITNIC, etc.). If, for one reason or another, a site cannot generate it's own routing tables, then fine, have NETSERV for something else generate them. But a site that can't run the tools to generate their own routing tables may well not be able to spend a lot of time and effort converting some sort of generic table format to something they can use. So, to summarize, I think it's more important to make it easy for as many sites as possible to generate their own routing tables than it is to keep the size of BITEARN NODES to an absolute minimum.