On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:41:40PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> David Weinehall <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for
> > preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly
> > important systems from failing?
> If such systems are highly important, should we accomodate them
> remaining unmonitored?
> Surely if they are unmonitored, then they are not considered
> sufficiently important to monitor. So “highly important” ceases to carry
> any weight in such cases. No?
The systems are not "unmonitored" they are physically difficult to access.
One of the tools used to monitor them is connecting to them with the node