--------------66CEE679DFAB76274409A754
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <terhi.victor@logonet.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:08:51 +0100
From: Franta Bendl <zwdsuj@relay.tunkki.fi>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CLX <gbkpckz@hsnetworking.com>
CC: Neal Campbell-Sarah Ferrell <terhi.victor@logonet.com>
Subject: PC34/PC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
hi neal, hi all,
clx uses a PC84 for remote command request because there is a lack of
logic in using of PC34. PC34/PC35 missing the user field. therefore it
isn't possible to assign the data comming with PC35 to a user if there
are more remote command requests active. i don't know what happen if two
users on ak1a send remote command requests at the same time. because
correct processing of user requests clx uses PC84 for this feature (btw.
a PC34 received at clx will be responded with PC35).
i have tested the digestibility of ak1a by PC84 at db0bcc and i didn't
see any problems. it's not correct that PC84 is sent with hop count of
99 because the PC84 has not a hops counter. send me please an extract
from a trafic log of an ak1a cluster received a PC84.
there is a possibility to stop sending of PC84 to all non clusters if
necessary.
73 de franta
--------------66CEE679DFAB76274409A754--