-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE]
On Behalf Of Brian Hechinger
Sent: 07 January 2013 19:04
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Area 48.....
Because the one downside of the Cisco's is they don't speak NICE. It would
be awesome if they did.
And adding NICE is also something I was thinking of adding to the user mode
router, but that is a bigger job than interoperating with Cisco I think.
Regards
Rob
-brian
On 1/7/2013 2:03 PM, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Well it doesn't play nice with the mapper Brian H and me are working
on..
sampsa
On 7 Jan 2013, at 20:59, Ian McLaughlin <ian at platinum.net> wrote:
On 2013-01-07, at 10:54 AM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
What kind of cisco tunnel? I'm curious as to if I could replicate any
of
that setup with open source stuff...
I have a Cisco 7206VXR router that has Cisco's Decnet implementation on
it. It is now acting as my area router, and connects to Dave's Cisco via
an IP
tunnel. From what I understand, Cisco's Decnet implementation is
proprietary - not sure if it works well with non-Cisco stuff.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE]
On Behalf Of Brian Hechinger
Sent: 07 January 2013 19:03
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Area 48.....
On 1/7/2013 1:59 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote:
On 2013-01-07, at 10:54 AM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
What kind of cisco tunnel? I'm curious as to if I could replicate any
of
that setup with open source stuff...
I have a Cisco 7206VXR router that has Cisco's Decnet implementation on
it. It is now acting as my area router, and connects to Dave's Cisco via
an IP
tunnel. From what I understand, Cisco's Decnet implementation is
proprietary - not sure if it works well with non-Cisco stuff.
Ian
Cisco's DECnet is, well, DECnet. :)
There is nothing special about the tunnel. It's just a bog standard GRE
tunnel
(or you could use an IPSec tunnel if you wanted to).
The Cisco just talks DECnet on all the links you tell it to.
As far as replicating it, you'd need something that can route DECnet and
can
talk GRE, that's all it would take. Good luck finding that though. :)
One of my plans was to extend the user mode router I wrote to interoperate
with Cisco. I don't believe it is all that hard to do. The code is written
to make this fairly easy.
Regards
Rob
On 2013-01-07 20:34, Brian Hechinger wrote:
Oh, I never expect NICE to make it into IOS. Especially at this point.
It was just a dream :)
It would be nice, but yeah. That will not happen.
Have we determined if SNMP works over DECnet?
I have a very hard time imagining this. SNMP does not have a known object in DECnet, so you'd have to go with a named object. But that still requires that the SNMP server would know how to speak DECnet. Not likely for the Cisco, since they don't even do NICE.
Johnny
-brian
On 1/7/2013 2:30 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Hmm. Well, adding NICE to IOS is less likely to happen than adding
SNMP to the mapper. ;)
-Dave
On 01/07/2013 02:22 PM, Brian Hechinger wrote:
No more so than implementing SNMP if you ask me.
-brian
On 1/7/2013 2:18 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Yes it would, but wouldn't that be edging away from "implementing a
DEC protocol" to "emulating a DEC operating system component"? (not
that it'd be that outlandish, given the origins of Cisco)
-Dave
On 01/07/2013 02:04 PM, Brian Hechinger wrote:
Because the one downside of the Cisco's is they don't speak NICE. It
would be awesome if they did.
-brian
On 1/7/2013 2:03 PM, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Well it doesn't play nice with the mapper Brian H and me are working
on..
sampsa
On 7 Jan 2013, at 20:59, Ian McLaughlin <ian at platinum.net> wrote:
On 2013-01-07, at 10:54 AM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
What kind of cisco tunnel? I'm curious as to if I could replicate
any of that setup with open source stuff...
I have a Cisco 7206VXR router that has Cisco's Decnet implementation
on it. It is now acting as my area router, and connects to Dave's
Cisco via an IP tunnel. From what I understand, Cisco's Decnet
implementation is proprietary - not sure if it works well with
non-Cisco stuff.
Ian
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
SET HOST worked well too. The worst it got (if you were in a hidden area contacting a hidden area at another site) was:
SET HOST ROUTR1::ROUTR2::HIDDEN
If you did it often enough then you just used logicals to define HIDDEN:: to ROUTR1::ROUTR2::HIDDEN. After that it was business as usual.
Given what was available at the time, it was quite workable.
-Steve
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Clem Cole
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 15:39
To: hecnet at update.uu.se
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Area 48.....
Man, I had fogotten some of these hacks ( bad memories ). Brian's right - it was a bad idea!
It was all left over because the original ISO/OSI stack did not (originally) have a internet-work layer and assumed a flat world. I remembered that argument!!
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ian McLaughlin <ian at platinum.net> wrote:
Sounds like bang-path routing from the good-old-days of UUCP.
Yup but the OpenSite::ClosedSite only needed one level of indirection, IIRC. In practice as people noted, for things like email and notes you did not care.
Again, once the internal network became more IP based, many of the hacks went away - at least for many of the users that lived in pure IP land (like me). By the time of the "Compaq-tion" an engineer only needed to use VMS for things like some of the payroll and benefits stuff. So like I am with Windows today @ Intel, I was with VMS @ DEC => I could use it and did, but tried to avoid it like many other painful things.
Clem
On 1/7/2013 3:39 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote:
We should soon have our Cisco box at Update up and running...
Johnny,
Let me know when it's running - I'd love a link off-continent :)
Ian
Check with Peter L. He's got two Ciscos. One is even across the pond in Sweden. :)
-brian
Man, I had fogotten some of these hacks ( bad memories ). Brian's right - it was a bad idea!
It was all left over because the original ISO/OSI stack did not (originally) have a internet-work layer and assumed a flat world. I remembered that argument!!
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ian McLaughlin <ian at platinum.net> wrote:
Sounds like bang-path routing from the good-old-days of UUCP.
Yup but the OpenSite::ClosedSite only needed one level of indirection, IIRC. In practice as people noted, for things like email and notes you did not care.
Again, once the internal network became more IP based, many of the hacks went away - at least for many of the users that lived in pure IP land (like me). By the time of the "Compaq-tion" an engineer only needed to use VMS for things like some of the payroll and benefits stuff. So like I am with Windows today @ Intel, I was with VMS @ DEC => I could use it and did, but tried to avoid it like many other painful things.
Clem
On 2013-01-07 19:52, Ian McLaughlin wrote:
Wouldn't it be ironic if Hecnet ran out of addresses :)
It would. However, I don't expect us to run out of addresses any time soon. However, areas are a rather limited resource, and we are slowly running out of them. Sampsa, do you really think three areas are motivated? DECnet was not designed with the idea that physically separate places needed separate areas. Areas are more of a logicial division thing (although some constraints do exist on areas).
Does anyone know what the largest DECnet deplayment was duing the good old days?
Easynet at DEC was larger than 64K nodes, actually. Using hidden areas...
p.s. Johnny, just in case you've still got the bindings in your bridge for area 42, you can remove them. Thanks to Dave McGuire, I've now got my Cisco router connected to him. Is there anyone else on Hecnet offering Cisco tunnels that I could set up for redundancy?
We should soon have our Cisco box at Update up and running...
Johnny
On 2013-01-07, at 10:44 AM, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Johnny,
As I've just moved to Beirut (well Dahab at the moment temporarily) and intend to keep areas 8 and 47 up and running, any chance I could get 48 for myself too?
Was thinking of a PPTP VPN and then multinet to area 8..
sampsa
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> writes:
On 1/7/2013 3:14 PM, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote: > Brian
Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> writes: > >> On 1/7/2013 2:48 PM, Brian
Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote: > Brian >> Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
writes: > >> What exactly does that mean? >>> Did any other messages
(codes) accompany the error? > >> None that I noticed, but they could
have been masked by this code. >> >> Just doing NCP TELL to other
machines on hecnet. > Did you get kicked back to DCL? If so, before
entring any other command > at the DCL prompt, issue: $ SHOW SYMBOL
$STATUS. >
Probably? This is all being doing from python. I can try to have it run
that, but i think i will get a new process space so it won't matter.
Can't you issue it from the command line? Python, if you are issuing the
command from os.system("TELL...") is probably just spawning off commands.
The context will be lost if that's the case.
The error in the NCP code from the $QIO(W) is returned but it is masked
with STS$M_INHIB_MSG. So, the status code may be there but DCL will not
translate it to a viewable message string due to the STS$M_INHIB_MSG bit.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
