Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Fri Oct 31 09:55:30 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 m9VGtUZm019204 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:55:30 -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 m9VH7DJD030046 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:07:13 -0700 Message-Id: <200810311707.m9VH7DJD030046@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: nam output Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:07:13 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > In my nam output, i am getting duplicate nodes as well as links. > > so if i have 4 beacon network, i get a completed netwrk with everybody fully > connected and apart from that there are 3 nodes duplicates in the file which > are isolated i.e. these just appear in the o/p. > > is this nam o/p correct or do we need to avoid duplicates ? YOu need to avoid duplication of nodes (duplication of links are okay). It should be easy to do! -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Bill Cheng wrote: > 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