Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Fri Oct 31 07:39:09 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9VEd9N7017592 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:39:09 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9VEp0tL027667 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:51:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200810311451.m9VEp0tL027667@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: nam output Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:51:00 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > My output of nam has many subnets and each subnet is not > connected to another. > Is it correct or should we make it become one network? The nam file should reflect what your network look like. Given the way we do STATUS requests and responses, it's by definition that our network should be connected. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu