[HECnet] Effects of Rogue Duplicate HECnet Node?

[Steve Davidson]

Bob,

Actually, HECnet does have a node 63.1023 in my lab. It is a hidden area node for testing purposes. :-)

-Steve Davidson

SF:iP1

> On Mar 3, 2020, at 22:38, Robert Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> The area.node notation, and the Phase 3 numeric address notation, were
>> intended to be standard, not just limited to NCP.  And indeed DECnet/E
>> (in RSTS) does both:
> 
>  FWIW, VMS accepts all three notations too - e.g. ZITI::, 2.16:: and
> 2064::.  It also accepts the node"name password":: notation as well.
> Actually I thought this was a standard thing in all "modern" (i.e. Phase IV)
> implementations.  Are there systems that don't?
> 
>  And the VMS parser doesn't limit the node name to 6 characters, so you can
> say "63.1023::" (although HECnet has no such node).
> 
> Bob
>