🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <chris.722141659@ph-meter.beckman.uiuc.edu> Chris Gressley,
chris@ph-meter.beckman.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>1. A "router" is not a "node". Nodes and routers are distinct sorts of
>things.
>

>2. Since a router is not a node,  
Does it really matter  ?  Personally I'd call it a node since it 1) has
its own
address, 2) communicates between other nodes, etc, etc. 

A1) A seeding router sets the address for the NETWORK that it is on.  It
may in fact 
choose its node number in the server range (e.g. 128-254 LocalTalk)

A2) Most macintosh machines keep their network address somewhere and will
try
 to use it 1st before trying to acquire a new address. And I'm sure that
routers
LaserWriters, etc all use the same mechanism.

>I am trying to configure the backbone network that the routers share
>with the campus backbone so that all of the routers are seed routers.
>Because of this, two of my routers are trying to use identical node
>IDs, which all in all is a very bad thing.

If you wish to do this you will need *unique* numbers for the separate
networks that
each router routes for.

A diagram:

   +---------------+----------------+---------------+   (4)   (trunk enet)
  [ ]                          [ ]                           [ ]         
              [ ]       (routers)
   |                            |                             |          
                |        (local talk branches)
   |                            |                             |          
                |      
  (2)                         (6)                         (9)           
          (11)   Network number   


   All routers must agree on the network number for the common network
(trunk)
Also if two routers number their respective localtalk branches the same 
nodes in one will not see nodes in the other.  With Phase II if the
routers do not
agree on the Phase II network number the networks are separate and will
not know about each other.

While I am not an AUTHORITY I am speaking from my experiences.