HECnet June 2012

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

38 participants
612 discussions

lunchbox VAXen, was Re: [HECnet] Introducing myself... and my little network

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/07/2012 09:13 AM, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote: A vaxstation 2000 and a microvax 2000 run V4.7 too. With VWS instead of Motif at a reasonable speed. Lunchboxes! :-) And there are images for new boot ROMs available for those which will allow you to boot from the on-board SCSI host adapter, which is relatively slow (NCR5380-based) but still less painful than trying to find, and then afford to purchase, an RD54. I think someone even wrote a driver for VMS to use disks on that controller. I have several of those machines; I really should look into that. Does anyone have any further information on, or actual copies of, those boot ROMs and/or the VMS device driver? -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

13 years, 1 month

Introducing myself... and my little network

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/07/2012 08:35 AM, Jordi Guillaumes i Pons wrote: According to this: http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/os/openvms-release-history.html Support for the 4000/90 came in version 5.5-2 (1992). The 3300 was supported in 5.0-2 and the 4000 mod. 2000 in 5.4-2. So none of my real boxen can run 4.7. Well you've gotta find yourself some more machines! 11/750s are probably the most common of the 4.x-capable machines, though there don't seem to be many left floating around. Heh, then I would have to find also a new home and probably an attorney to handle de divorce demand ;) I'll keep my mouth shut.. ;) -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

13 years, 1 month

promiscuous mode, was Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/07/2012 08:16 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Any program that needs access to raw ethernet packets needs to run as root. Promiscuous mode or not. Promiscuous mode itself has little to do with this. So if you want to run anything like a bridge or a router, you will need to run it as root. Promiscuous mode is basically just allowing you to share the same interface as the system is otherwise using, instead of having to dedicate a separate ethernet interface for this. Maybe you're just putting this another way, but promiscuous mode is correctly defined a bit differently than this. When an Ethernet controller is placed into promiscuous mode, its on-chip MAC address filters, which normally either select or ignore inbound packets based on their MAC address, are disabled. ALL packets are received by the hardware and passed to the Ethernet driver in the OS, rather than only the ones destined for that specific interface as defined by its MAC address. I'm reasonably certain that you know this but were just explaining it in a more abstract way...? -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

13 years, 1 month

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/07/2012 08:23 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Howabout starting it as a daemon (running as root) via the boot scripts, and have non-root users's programs access it via a socket? Cool idea - you could even have multiple hosts connect this way but export one DECNET endpoint, i.e. run CTERM on Box A whilst FAL goes to Box B, and MAIL to Box C :) Yes, you could multiplex/demultiplex it any way you wanted. It would open up all sorts of interesting configuration possibilities. I think it would help if you actually explained a little more what you actually want to accomplish, and what you see as the problems...? We're just batting some ideas around. One problem is that the current DECnet stack for Linux has fallen into dismaintenance, and if that can't be changed, it will eventually stop working on current-ish kernels. The idea is to write a userland (meaning outside the kernel, not running under a non-root UID) implementation of DECnet and have non-root users' apps (dncopy, etc) talk to it via a local socket. Of course it'd be preferable in a dozen ways to have the native kernel-based DECnet support continue to be maintained, alongside IPv4, IPv6, etc where it belongs...but if we can't find anyone to do that work, we'll have to solve the problem some other way, when it actually becomes a problem. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

13 years, 1 month

DECnet-DOS, was Re: [HECnet] Size of HECnet

by gregg.drwho8＠gmail.com

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote: On 06/07/2012 12:11 PM, Kari Uusim ki wrote: There is a DECnet stack for DOS and Windows in the Pathworks V5 or V6 client kit. Those versions were meant to be used on Windows'es before Windows NT4. Then the Pathworks32 kit was released and that could be used on WNT4.0 and Windows 2000. Maybe on XP as well. Don't remember for sure. Is this the same as DECnet-DOS? I ran that a long time ago. Does anyone have a copy? It included drivers for that weird DEC ISA Ethernet card, the DEPCA, which was a full-length 8-bit board that also included (strangely) a mouse interface. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA Hello! Oh my aching field density equalizers! I have the programs for that thing. (Don't have the card.) I, ah, made a copy of the programs onto a floppy from a PC/AT that I was repairing for a customer, oh say about twenty years ago. The customer, (not mine Dave the store I was working at) was a student at one of the schools, (college) who had a remarkable DEC installation running at it, it might have been Columbia. I found the card in it, and asked the manager who was double checking my work, as was his wont, and of course he didn't know what it was. I found out later what it was, and yes it was what you've described. Some years later I tracked down an old RACAL networking card and its software, and they included a binary who took over for the code that supported the hardware to talk to that stuff. Obviously I never got the stuff to connect to a for real DEC setup, but heck it would be fun to try and do so. By the way Dave outside your door is a well dressed gentleman in a suit that looks like something a certain outrageous poet and author wore, and has hair to match. (Hint: its the same daft stuff I sometimes pull on Sampsa.) There's also a blue colored box outside......... ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

13 years, 1 month

DECnet-DOS, was Re: [HECnet] Size of HECnet

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/07/2012 12:11 PM, Kari Uusim ki wrote: There is a DECnet stack for DOS and Windows in the Pathworks V5 or V6 client kit. Those versions were meant to be used on Windows'es before Windows NT4. Then the Pathworks32 kit was released and that could be used on WNT4.0 and Windows 2000. Maybe on XP as well. Don't remember for sure. Is this the same as DECnet-DOS? I ran that a long time ago. Does anyone have a copy? It included drivers for that weird DEC ISA Ethernet card, the DEPCA, which was a full-length 8-bit board that also included (strangely) a mouse interface. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

13 years, 1 month

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/07/2012 01:12 PM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote: Howabout starting it as a daemon (running as root) via the boot scripts, and have non-root users's programs access it via a socket? Cool idea - you could even have multiple hosts connect this way but export one DECNET endpoint, i.e. run CTERM on Box A whilst FAL goes to Box B, and MAIL to Box C :) Yes, you could multiplex/demultiplex it any way you wanted. It would open up all sorts of interesting configuration possibilities. ... and all this without needing to dick with the kernel? Sounds like a plan gentlemen, so now all we need is a long suffering coder type to do all the hard work ;) The main difference I can see vs. having the implementation in the kernel is that the kernel one gives you an integrated API. DecNET/Linux uses sockets, so an existing socket based app can be made to run over DECnet with potentially very little work. On the other hand, a userland implementation would need a different mechanism for the communication between the application and the DECnet daemon. Hmm. Suddenly that approach doesn't sound very appetizing. :-( -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

13 years, 1 month

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com

-----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner- hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Mark Benson Sent: 07 June 2012 07:27 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1:: Now, you have due permission to beat me with a dried haddock if I'm being naive (I'm not a programmer, just a user observing a conversation that's 50% over my head) but... Wouldn't a kernel-agnostic DECnet implementation be a better shot? I mean if you can skim DECnet packets using libpcap (which is kernel agnostic as far as I can tell, hell it even works on Windows :)) and use that to handle DECnet for the bridge or SimH what's stopping it being used for a full DECnet comms package? It might not be very *fast* and it's sure as hell not secure but it'd work, right? With the fast pace of kernel change and the dropping of kernel support (and OSs like Ubuntu update the kernel regularly which will break things) for DECnet in the 3.x kernel it may be that kernel-based support is no longer practicable on modern Linux. Just a thought... This is such a big thread that it breached my attention span limit, so apologies if I miss something. This was exactly my plan, and I intend to give it a go, but no promises on when I will have something. I think it would be running a user-mode program running as root, use promiscuous mode, and on linux/unix run as a daemon, while on Windows it would run as a service. Being user mode it would be possible to run it on multiple platforms with ease. I am no DECnet expert, so I don't fully understand why I would need some kind of other interface to the routing function, I got a bit lost when people started talking about needing sockets to talk to the daemon. I think I would probably just use a config file to drive it, rather than provide some kind of command interface. Not sure if this would break something? Regards Rob

13 years, 1 month

The bridge program...

by robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com

-----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner- hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: 07 June 2012 01:30 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] The bridge program... On 2012-06-07 01:29, Rob Jarratt wrote: As I have hacked my own copy around a bit to make it work on Windows, can you tell me what the fix was as I may find it hard to locate your change? The port variable in the struct BRIDGE should be unsigned... :-) What changes have you made? Maybe something that should be incorporated in my sources? Johnny I can't remember exactly now, but it was mostly to get it to work on Windows. I didn't do any fancy conditional compilation stuff on it for the most part. I have attached it here. Regards Rob

13 years, 1 month

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com

-----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner- hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Peter Lothberg Sent: 07 June 2012 03:02 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Cc: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1:: Hmm. Sure. But if you go the Linux routing route, then you instead get into the problem that it don't have a point-to-point connection to another Linux box on the Internet... If anyone makes a Linux implemenation, I'll suggest that it would be made to support the Cisco/GRE and Multinet/UDP formats, and you could also have Johnny's bridge on the other side.... -P That is a good idea, I will take a look at doing that. Regards Rob

13 years, 1 month

← Newer
1
...
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
...
62
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet June 2012