HARRY@MARIST.BITNET (A. Harry Williams) (02/10/90)
These are the BITNET nodes with no :routtab. ANLADM1 ANLADM2 ANLAPS ANLBEM ANLCHM ANLCMT ANLCV1 ANLEES ANLEES1 ANLEES2 ANLEES3 ANLEL ANLEMC ANLER ANLHEP ANLPHY ANLPNS ANLVG ANLVMS BENTLEY BUCKNELL BUCSI0 CESARVAX CITDEIMO CRNLASSP CRNLCAM CRNLDEV CRNLEE CRNLION CRNLNUC CRNLTHRY CRNLVAX1 CRNLVAX3 CRNLVAX4 EMORY HARVBMB HARVPCNA HARVUNXU HUMA1 HUSCGW HUSC7 HUSC8 HUSSLE IRISHVX2 IUPCP6 JPNISAS0 MILTON NDRADLAB NIHCEIB NIHCOD2 NIHCOD3 NIHCRING NIHCR31 NIHCUDEC NIHDCRT NIHDCRTL NIHDRG NIHDRS NIHDRSBE NIHHFED1 NIHHWB1 NIHH101 NIHH311 NIHKLMB NIHOD1 NIHOPSIS NIH3PLUS NIH3TEST NIH4TEST NRAO PORTAL PSU2020 RSAGE SPC11A SPC11B SPC11C SPC11D SPC11E SPC11Y SPC11Z SUSOLAR TCSMUSA TJWATSON UCBALFA UCBARE UCBARGON UCBARPA UCBBACH UCBBIZET UCBBKYAS UCBBRAHM UCBBUDDY UCBCAD UCBCALDE UCBCARTA UCBCCHEM UCBCED UCBCEVAX UCBCOGSC UCBCORY UCBCSM UCBDEAN UCBDOROT UCBEAST UCBECLAI UCBENZYM UCBERNIE UCBEROS UCBESVAX UCBEULER UCBFRANN UCBGARNE UCBHOLDE UCBIC UCBINSEC UCBJANUS UCBJI UCBKEPLE UCBMAXWE UCBMIRO UCBMONET UCBMOTE UCBNEWTO UCBOKEEF UCBOZ UCBPOSTG UCBQAL UCBRENOI UCBSEYMO UCBSHAKE UCBSIM UCBSOE UCBSSL UCBSTAT UCBTULIP UCBUNIXS UCBVANGO UCBVAX UCBVIOLE UCBZOOEY UCHCECVX UCSCA UCSCC UCSCCRLJ UCSCCRLP UCSCCRLS UCSCCRLV UCSCD UCSCE UCSCERIS UCSCF UCSCG UCSCH UCSCHU UCSCI UCSCJ UCSCK UCSCL UCSCLOA UCSCM UCSFBCL UCSFCCB UCSFCGL UCSFCOPE UCSFC255 UCSFC450 UCSFFFFT UCSFMIS UCSFNMR UCSFUSE UCSFVIVO UGA205 UIUCDENR UKWANG UMNACUX UNDHEP UONEURO UOREGON UOXRAY UTCHP1
TERRY@SPCVXA.BITNET (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr) (02/10/90)
> These are the BITNET nodes with no :routtab. > [...] > SPC11A SPC11B SPC11C SPC11D > SPC11E SPC11Y SPC11Z These nodes share common routing tables with node SPCVXA, which has a correct :routtab. As all of our systems are at the end of a leaf, all we really need is a list of current nodes. We create this from the NETINIT file for SPCVXA. The systems listed above are mail-only nodes anyway, so any attempt to send a file to them would generate a non-delivery nastygram. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381
mwh@IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk) (02/10/90)
get the original file? I also have a list, but most are (UCB) 'HOMEBREW' nodes, which do nFri; from "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" at Feb 9, 90 2:02 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0] > systems listed above are mail-only nodes anyway, so any attempt to send a file > to them would generate a non-delivery nastygram. > > Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing No :routtab tags were generated for mail-only nodes. Mike Hrybyk BITNIC
TERRY@SPCVXA.BITNET (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr) (02/10/90)
Your message came through a bit garbled, let me see... > get the original file? If you mean the original posting which omitted the actual node list, yes I received it. > No :routtab tags were generated for mail-only nodes. If we've reached closure on the discussion ov valid values for :routtab, do you think I should submit update requests to include :routtab.NONE fields for my nodes? (And yes, NONE is appropriate - these nodes maintain no routing tables locally - all mail is verified via DECnet connection to the mailer on SPCVXA, which has the real tables). Terry Kennedy
mwh@IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk) (02/12/90)
> >No :routtab tags were generated for mail-only nodes. > > Why is that. I have a mail-only node hanging off my cluster (GENESEO) > and they need the tables for PMDF. > Jim... > I should be more specific about the scheme used to generate routtab tags. I first looked at inform/info tags, looking for a clue as to what type of table was needed. I then looked at contact/netsoft combinations (which is what Chris Thomas uses, I believe). If none of those were "valid" (HOMEBREW, ...), the tag was not generated. GENESEO had an inform/info pair that was valid, so a correct routtab tag was generated. Sorry for the confusion. Mike Hrybyk BITNIC
MAINTCMS@PUCC.BITNET (John Wagner) (02/12/90)
On Fri, 9 Feb 90 18:00:22 EST Michael Hrybyk said:
>No :routtab tags were generated for mail-only nodes.
It used to be policy that mail-only nodes were excluded from the BITEARN
NODES. When was this policy changed?