[HECnet] Effects of Rogue Duplicate HECnet Node?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2020-03-04 20:59, John Forecast wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 3, 2020, at 10:38 PM, 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
>>
> 
> Here’s a few more:
> 
> DECnet-RSX
> 
> 	Kernel interface requires a node name (up to 6 characters) so can only connect to nodes which are in the system database.
> 	Access control uses the syntax nodename/user/password/account::

I think access control allows either nodename/user/password/account:: or
nodename"user password":: everywhere.

However, only NCP allows numeric addresses. Anything else needs the 
nodename. But within NCP you can play using node numbers everywhere just 
fine.

   Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol