[HECnet] Effects of Rogue Duplicate HECnet Node?

[John Forecast]

> On Mar 5, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
Yes, you’re right. I don’t remember ever using the quote format.

   John.

> 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