Hey Carlos,

AFAIK currently there is only one exception: 1:310/0 and 2:310/0. Even
so, these two networks have no equal node numbers, so no problem (except
if these nodes used their Hosts' addresses for moving echomail).

TJ Barlow @ 1:310/0 is a famous collector of addresses and hats, other than that he's pretty harmless.

Is this just by chance, or is there some kind of agreement between *Cs?

If you mean cast in concrete and documented, then the answer is no.

But the 'current' ZCs are aware and try to nip any duplicate netnumbers in the butt before it becomes a problem. Unique netnumbers and node-numbers (with that one exception) facilitate the dupe-detection provided no-one setting-up inter-zone links enables seen-by stripping or uses any of the crappy software where seen-by stripping is hardcoded in ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)

07 Jun 2021 22:51, you wrote to me:

Is this just by chance, or is there some kind of agreement between
*Cs?

If you mean cast in concrete and documented, then the answer is no.

I supposed so, as I hadn't found anything about it.

But the 'current' ZCs are aware and try to nip any duplicate
netnumbers in the butt before it becomes a problem. Unique netnumbers
and node-numbers (with that one exception) facilitate the
dupe-detection provided no-one setting-up inter-zone links enables
seen-by stripping or uses any of the crappy software where seen-by stripping is hardcoded in ...

Thank you for the info. Nice to know that you ZCs are cooperating for a better Fidonet. Keep up the good work!

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: costa blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)

Re: fidoweb
By: Carlos Navarro to All on Mon Jun 07 2021 10:11 pm

Hi everyone,

Now that you're talking about the fidoweb concept, I have some question...

If I understand correctly, there should not be common net/number combination between zones so that messages arrive at every node (if we want it to work properly not just inside a zone).

AFAIK currently there is only one exception: 1:310/0 and 2:310/0. Even so, these two networks have no equal node numbers, so no problem (except if thes nodes used their Hosts' addresses for moving echomail).

Is this just by chance, or is there some kind of agreement between *Cs?

Carlos

Hi Carlos, you doubtless have the answer by now, but yes. It was part of the design of the nodelist format.

xxarol
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)

18 Jul 2021 08:14, you wrote to me:

Hi Carlos, you doubtless have the answer by now, but yes. It was part
of the design of the nodelist format.

Yes, Carol. Ward already answered.

Thanks, also for your other reply.

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)

Re: fidoweb
By: Carlos Navarro to Carol Shenkenberger on Sat Jul 24 2021 09:21 am

18 Jul 2021 08:14, you wrote to me:

Hi Carlos, you doubtless have the answer by now, but yes. It was part of the design of the nodelist format.

Yes, Carol. Ward already answered.

Thanks, also for your other reply.

Carlos

Welcome and Ward is also right that it was never properly documented. Perhaps it was simply 'known?'

xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)

15 Aug 2021 10:02, you wrote to me:

Welcome and Ward is also right that it was never properly documented. Perhaps it was simply 'known?'

Though not documented, apparently there was some talk about this.

For example this message from an old thread I came across the other day:

= FN_SYSOP ====================================================
From : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 18 Mar 2014 17:16:14
To : Björn Felten
Subj : Seen-by stripping ===============================================================
Hello Björn,

On Tuesday March 18 2014 16:12, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> With the demise of net 1:250, the last non unique
MvdV>> non-administrative net/node combination is gone.

That last one was 250/1.

Ahhh! Good spot. So now there's no reason at all for the first dimension of our antiquated addressing system? 8-)

Indeed, we can drop the zones now. ;-)

MvdV>> Everyone please: disable interzone seen-by stripping.

Amen to that!

And please all RC's: Do not create a new net with a number that already exists in another zone.

And please all NC's: Do not issue a new node number if the net/node combination already exists in another zone.


Cheers, Michiel

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

=======================

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)