[Info-vax] Cutting down on routing nodes

[John E. Malmberg]

H Vlems wrote:
> On 3 aug, 22:54, CY <christ... at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If I understand you well then these are your requirements:
> -You're running all the DECnet machines in one area
> -All nodes run phase IV
> -You'd rather run without routing because the overhead involved is a
> concern
> 
> It is quite possible to run a DECnet environment without a router at
> all, as you've tried and proved.
> While doing that, you're effectively blind. So the choice seems to be
> between running (at least) one
> router or implementing a tool to figure out what is alive in area 5.
> The overhead of running a circuit router is minimal, even on a
> microVAX II. Using a DECnet 'ping' is
> something you need to schedule and will impose some kind of additional
> load on the target nodes.
> (if you're rinning PDP--1 systems, shouldn't it be TYPE
> <node>::NL: ?).
> 
> Converting an endnode system to a router node is no longer in
> NETCONFIG. The manual procedure is:
> 
> $ MC NCP
> NCP> DEF EXEC TYPE ROUT IV
> NCP> SET EXEC STATE OFF
> NCP> EXIT
> $!
> $ @SYS$STARTUP:NETSTART

One other thing to be taken into consideration is that all nodes in a 
cluster that need to answer to a DECNET cluster alias need to have 
routing enabled.

When my job was managing VMS systems, the reason not to have additional 
Phase IV routing nodes is because the license was significantly higher 
priced than for an end node.

-John
wb8tyw at qsl.network
Personal Opinion Only