Text 1055, 151 rader
Skriven 2012-07-22 10:30:24 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
    Kommentar till text 999 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: dupes!
==============
Hello mark,

On Friday July 20 2012 19:08, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>> The only one I now of now is 250/1.  RC25 had the opportunity
 MvdV>>> to prevent this when renumbering the region to a single net.
 MvdV>>> He missed out. His bad.

 ml>> there is no restrictions on it...

 MvdV>> There should be...

 ml> why?

I have already explained that.

 ml>> it can and may very well come up again... why waste numbers by
 ml>> skipping them if there is no good reason?

 MvdV>> 1) Wasting is only a problem when there is shortage. There is
 MvdV>> no shortage of Fidonet node numers, even if we only use 2D
 MvdV>> numbering.

 ml> nonsequiter...

Wrong premises. You assume there is waste. I say there is no waste because
there is no shortage.

 MvdV>> 2) There is a good reason to avoid duplicate net/node
 MvdV>> combinations.

 ml> there is no problem with duplicate 2d addresses as long as things are
 ml> handled properly and take them into consideration... those throwing
 ml> 20+ years of practise and esperience out the window are causing or
 ml> going to cause problems for everyone else...

Argumentum ad antiquitatum.

You presume that the founding father's made no mistakes and the fact that we
held on to what they concocted for 20+ years shows that it was good.

The presumption is wrong. The founding fathers goofed up on many things. The
fact that we held on to some of wrong decisions for 20+ years does not mean
they weren't wrong decision. Many of these goofs we just have to live with
because we can not replace all the abandonware that floats around. But some of
them we can work around.

The 2D seen-by and path in a 3D environment is one of the goofs that we can
work around: by avoiding duplicate net/node combinations.

We can not fix the goof at the root, it is far tool ate in the game to upgrade
oath and seen-by to 3D, but we can work arounf it by avoiding duplicate
net/node combinations.

From the technical POV, it would be even better to do away with the zones.
There never was a technical need for them to begin with and the implemantation
is flakey at best. But I think doing away with the zones is a politically
unreacheable goal.

 MvdV>> When introducing zones, a basic flaw in echomail distribution
 MvdV>> was introduced by not upgrading the seen-by and path
 MvdV>> infornation to 3D. Avoiding duplicate net/node combinations is
 MvdV>> a workaround for this flaw.

 ml> i understand this and i've participated in the discussions and
 ml> arguments on both sides of this many years ago... long before you came
 ml> out of Z2 and into the development side of fidonet... there were
 ml> numerous long and very heated discussions on this very topic...

Ad verecundiam

You assume that 20+ years ago I was not involved because you did not see me.

The fact is I was already in the technology of Fidonet long before I stuck my
neck out in NET-DEV.

But even if I came along only yesterday, that does not invalidate my POV that
not upgrading path and seen-by to be zone aware was a basic flaw in the design
of the network.

 MvdV>>> Plus that 1:250/1 is an administrative AKA that should not be
 MvdV>>> used in echomail anyway.

 ml>> really? why?

 MvdV>> P4 3.4

 MvdV>> Coordinators are discouraged from acting as echomail and
 MvdV>> software-distri- bution hubs.  If they do so, they should
 MvdV>> handle echomail (or other volume distribution) on a system
 MvdV>> other than the administrative system.  A coordina- tor's system
 MvdV>> should be readily available to the levels immediately above and
 MvdV>> below.

 ml> agreed... so who is going to file a PC about it?

Not me. I have learned my lesson...

 MvdV>> Other than that: 1:250/1 is a vanity listing, The NEC user flag
 MvdV>> in (one of) the regular listing(s) of the NEC suffices to
 MvdV>> identify the NEC.

 ml> nonsequiter...

I suggest you look up the meaning of "nonsequiter" (sic)

 ml>>> some are reporting that posts are still not propagating fully...
 ml>>> this is one possible reason for such...

 MvdV>>> No, that is not the reason.

 ml>> you say that as if you know the reason...

 MvdV>> You are jumping to conclusions.

 ml> no i'm not... you flatly state that that is not the reason... you
 ml> cannot know this unless you do know the reason, can you?

Tertium non datur

 MvdV>> It is very well possible to eliminate one or more items from a
 MvdV>> list of possible causes, without eliminating all but one.

 ml> of course...

So there you go. I need not know the reason, but can know what is not the
reason by elimination.

 MvdV>> And I have eliminated the duplicate of 1:250/1 and 2:250/1 from
 MvdV>> my list.

 ml> that system is not involved in the lack of message flow that others
 ml> are reporting...

That is why I have eliminated it from my list of possible causes.

 MvdV>> Still on my list are:

 MvdV>> A) Messages are lost at 1:140/1. This is known to have happened
 MvdV>> before. B) Someone is censoring this echo. It is known to have
 MvdV>> happened before.

 ml> are those the only two items on that list?

No. And before you bring it up: I do not claim my list is complete.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)