Decnet 3 is compatible with phase 4. DEC was great with upward compatibility.
I thought ethernet (10 Mb/s, thickwire) ws from 1977, VMS is about the same age.
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:48:42
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet et al
On 2011-07-17 20.35, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
DECnet phase 4 is about as old as ethernet and VMS. Ethernet was the main driving force for phase 4 owing to the large number of adjacent nodes and the sheer number.
Not really. Phase IV is about as old as ethernet, yes. VMS is older...
Phase 3 does not have areas and only recognizes 255 hosts max. It did have circuit routing (of course)
Yes. About the same thing as L1 routing. I think it might even be
partially compatible, within the restrictions on the number of nodes...
Johnny
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Levine<gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:26:07
To:<hecnet at update.uu.se>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet et al
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bob Armstrong<bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
A bridge (hw) maintains a list of mac addresses it sees at each port.
FWIW, that's a "switch" at least in the common usage of the word over
here.
Bob
Hello!
I agree! Now first things first. When did DECNET first appear? And
more importantly, based on what systems and using what means to
connect each system.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2011-07-17 20.59, Peter Lothberg wrote:
When did DECNET first appear?
Mid-1970s, depending on which version ("Phase") you consider to be
"DECnet". I'm sure someone will provide a more specific date.
using what means to connect each system.
Point to point serial (note that doesn't mean RS-232!) links (rarely
parallel) using various means for the actual physical connection.
DECnet definitely predates Ethernet by many years, if that's your
point.
Bob
ANF10!
DISCO DUCK
DISCO FEVER
(wasn't there a third one?)
:-)
ANF10 is a fond memory... Do I remember right that it was based on PDP-8
machines acting as connection points? Did they talk serial lines between
each other?
Johnny
Hello!
If that's the case, then how would these machines communicate over
longer distances? For that matter, before Ethernet, and even the
current methods of fast connections we have now, would all of you
believe that we did use either dial-up on leased lines?
Mentioned in Cliff Stoll's book, "Cuckoo's Egg" is how his university
was connected to the Internet.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On 2011-07-17 20.59, Peter Lothberg wrote:
When did DECNET first appear?
Mid-1970s, depending on which version ("Phase") you consider to be
"DECnet". I'm sure someone will provide a more specific date.
using what means to connect each system.
Point to point serial (note that doesn't mean RS-232!) links (rarely
parallel) using various means for the actual physical connection.
DECnet definitely predates Ethernet by many years, if that's your point.
Bob
ANF10!
DISCO DUCK
DISCO FEVER
(wasn't there a third one?)
:-)
ANF10 is a fond memory... Do I remember right that it was based on PDP-8 machines acting as connection points? Did they talk serial lines between each other?
Johnny
When did DECNET first appear?
Mid-1970s, depending on which version ("Phase") you consider to be
"DECnet". I'm sure someone will provide a more specific date.
using what means to connect each system.
Point to point serial (note that doesn't mean RS-232!) links (rarely
parallel) using various means for the actual physical connection.
DECnet definitely predates Ethernet by many years, if that's your point.
Bob
ANF10!
On 2011-07-17 20.41, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
Johnny, in general I am a strong believer in the motto that if someting isn't broken then you shouldn't try to fix it.
And I always felt that a bridged ( or switched :-) lan is "better" than a routed lan, provided enough bandwidth is available.
Thanks. The problem is that there are limits that a bridged ethernet will hit, and we're getting close to where it will hurt in HECnet.
It simply does not scale well.
That is why it might be that we need to do something else eventually. Either split so we have several smaller segments, with normal DECnet machines routing in between them, or else write a virtual router. Who knows what we'll do in the end. :-)
Johnny
Hans
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Billquist<bqt at softjar.se>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:34:53
To:<hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet et al
On 2011-07-17 20.22, Peter Lothberg wrote:
But HECnet as a whole is not connected to this segment...
I thought the majority of it was... There are a few people, like me, who
are using Multinet but only a few cases. I thought pretty much everything
was bridged.
[FWIW, Multinet tunnels a point-to-point DECnet link, essentially like a
DDCMP link, over UDP. For that you really need to have a router at either
end to pass traffic for other machines on either LAN.]
Bob
Johnny,
If you can make a DECnet router, (l3...) or make the Internet look like point-to-point
(ddcmp) links, it would work 'better'. As sending all areas as 'rip
vectors' every second is not'usefull'.
Yes. The bridge is simple, but not really ideal. It causes a lot of
traffic that would be better if we could restrict.
But for a router, we need to talk the DECnet routing packets, which I
think might not be that bad, but then also route DECnet packets, which
means much more cleverness. I'm afraid I definitely don't have time for
all that.
But it would be nice. You could even be extra clever and only present
one DECnet node with n interfaces, one for each endpoing that currently
have a bridge. So it would seem like everyone had a connection to that
router, but no direct connection to the other endpoints. So we'd have
routing traffic running p-t-p to the virtual router, but no need to
spread that traffic all over the earth, as is done today. Each end would
still be running the bridge just like today, but the central hub would
be rather different.
And I'm offline, as I only speak Multinet and Decnet in GRE... (and
takes for endpoints?)
Yeah. I know... I think you are not the only one not at all on the
bridge, but I can't remember anyone else off hand.
Johnny
On 2011-07-17 20.35, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
DECnet phase 4 is about as old as ethernet and VMS. Ethernet was the main driving force for phase 4 owing to the large number of adjacent nodes and the sheer number.
Not really. Phase IV is about as old as ethernet, yes. VMS is older...
Phase 3 does not have areas and only recognizes 255 hosts max. It did have circuit routing (of course)
Yes. About the same thing as L1 routing. I think it might even be partially compatible, within the restrictions on the number of nodes...
Johnny
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Levine<gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:26:07
To:<hecnet at update.uu.se>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet et al
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bob Armstrong<bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
A bridge (hw) maintains a list of mac addresses it sees at each port.
FWIW, that's a "switch" at least in the common usage of the word over
here.
Bob
Hello!
I agree! Now first things first. When did DECNET first appear? And
more importantly, based on what systems and using what means to
connect each system.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
Johnny, in general I am a strong believer in the motto that if someting isn't broken then you shouldn't try to fix it.
And I always felt that a bridged ( or switched :-) lan is "better" than a routed lan, provided enough bandwidth is available.
Hans
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:34:53
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet et al
On 2011-07-17 20.22, Peter Lothberg wrote:
But HECnet as a whole is not connected to this segment...
I thought the majority of it was... There are a few people, like me, who
are using Multinet but only a few cases. I thought pretty much everything
was bridged.
[FWIW, Multinet tunnels a point-to-point DECnet link, essentially like a
DDCMP link, over UDP. For that you really need to have a router at either
end to pass traffic for other machines on either LAN.]
Bob
Johnny,
If you can make a DECnet router, (l3...) or make the Internet look like point-to-point
(ddcmp) links, it would work 'better'. As sending all areas as 'rip
vectors' every second is not'usefull'.
Yes. The bridge is simple, but not really ideal. It causes a lot of
traffic that would be better if we could restrict.
But for a router, we need to talk the DECnet routing packets, which I
think might not be that bad, but then also route DECnet packets, which
means much more cleverness. I'm afraid I definitely don't have time for
all that.
But it would be nice. You could even be extra clever and only present
one DECnet node with n interfaces, one for each endpoing that currently
have a bridge. So it would seem like everyone had a connection to that
router, but no direct connection to the other endpoints. So we'd have
routing traffic running p-t-p to the virtual router, but no need to
spread that traffic all over the earth, as is done today. Each end would
still be running the bridge just like today, but the central hub would
be rather different.
And I'm offline, as I only speak Multinet and Decnet in GRE... (and
takes for endpoints?)
Yeah. I know... I think you are not the only one not at all on the
bridge, but I can't remember anyone else off hand.
Johnny
That was a tongue in cheek quiz question Bob :-)
------Origineel bericht------
Van: Bob Armstrong
Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: RE: [HECnet] DECnet et al
Verzonden: 17 juli 2011 20:34
What is the difference between a bridge and a switch?
Ok, I won't debate nomenclature. At least now I think we're all talking
about the same thing :-)
Bob
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
DECnet phase 4 is about as old as ethernet and VMS. Ethernet was the main driving force for phase 4 owing to the large number of adjacent nodes and the sheer number.
Phase 3 does not have areas and only recognizes 255 hosts max. It did have circuit routing (of course)
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:26:07
To: <hecnet at update.uu.se>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet et al
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
A bridge (hw) maintains a list of mac addresses it sees at each port.
FWIW, that's a "switch" at least in the common usage of the word over
here.
Bob
Hello!
I agree! Now first things first. When did DECNET first appear? And
more importantly, based on what systems and using what means to
connect each system.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On 2011-07-17 20.22, Peter Lothberg wrote:
But HECnet as a whole is not connected to this segment...
I thought the majority of it was... There are a few people, like me, who
are using Multinet but only a few cases. I thought pretty much everything
was bridged.
[FWIW, Multinet tunnels a point-to-point DECnet link, essentially like a
DDCMP link, over UDP. For that you really need to have a router at either
end to pass traffic for other machines on either LAN.]
Bob
Johnny,
If you can make a DECnet router, (l3...) or make the Internet look like point-to-point
(ddcmp) links, it would work 'better'. As sending all areas as 'rip
vectors' every second is not'usefull'.
Yes. The bridge is simple, but not really ideal. It causes a lot of traffic that would be better if we could restrict.
But for a router, we need to talk the DECnet routing packets, which I think might not be that bad, but then also route DECnet packets, which means much more cleverness. I'm afraid I definitely don't have time for all that.
But it would be nice. You could even be extra clever and only present one DECnet node with n interfaces, one for each endpoing that currently have a bridge. So it would seem like everyone had a connection to that router, but no direct connection to the other endpoints. So we'd have routing traffic running p-t-p to the virtual router, but no need to spread that traffic all over the earth, as is done today. Each end would still be running the bridge just like today, but the central hub would be rather different.
And I'm offline, as I only speak Multinet and Decnet in GRE... (and
takes for endpoints?)
Yeah. I know... I think you are not the only one not at all on the bridge, but I can't remember anyone else off hand.
Johnny
