On 2013-05-08 23:55, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Dennis Boone wrote:
> Isn't ROUTING IV level 2 router? EXEC TYPE is defined as that...or it
> should be anyway.
Yeah, Cory wants Area IV.
Okay. I got him connected now.
Excellent.
It seems there are already nodes defined for area 32. Was it previously
assigned to someone?
Uh? I don't have any nodes in area 32. Where did you get those?
Also, Please set 32.1 to "FDR", Johnny!
Done.
Johnny
--
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
I think I figured it out. The DECnet/Linux code is in dnprogs, file
multinet.c
... the multinet stuff hooks into the Ethernet machinery (via a tun/tap
port).
This just begs the question - can I run multinet.c as a stand alone
program? Suppose I had a Linux machine, ran simh, connected the virtual
QNA/UNA to a tun/tap device, connected multinet.c to the same device, could
I then talk to a remote VMS node?
Quite a hack, but it might be useful ...
Bob
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Dennis Boone wrote:
> Isn't ROUTING IV level 2 router? EXEC TYPE is defined as that...or it
> should be anyway.
Yeah, Cory wants Area IV.
Okay. I got him connected now.
It seems there are already nodes defined for area 32. Was it previously assigned to someone?
Also, Please set 32.1 to "FDR", Johnny!
De
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Paul_Koning wrote:
On May 8, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-08 03:36, Connor Youngquist wrote:
Hello,
I would like to request area 32 for my usage. I've been watching HECnet
for a while now, and I'm ready to jump in and start learning. Cory has
mentioned that he will assist me in setting up the proper connections.
So noted.
Johnny
I've almost got him connected...but!
%%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 8-MAY-2013 17:29:29.93 %%%%%%%%%%%
Message from user DECNET on GEWT
DECnet event 4.19, adjacency down, operator initiated
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Paul_Koning wrote:
On May 8, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-08 03:36, Connor Youngquist wrote:
Hello,
I would like to request area 32 for my usage. I've been watching HECnet
for a while now, and I'm ready to jump in and start learning. Cory has
mentioned that he will assist me in setting up the proper connections.
So noted.
Johnny
I've almost got him connected...but!
%%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 8-MAY-2013 17:29:29.93 %%%%%%%%%%%
Message from user DECNET on GEWT
DECnet event 4.19, adjacency down, operator initiated
On May 8, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-08 03:36, Connor Youngquist wrote:
Hello,
I would like to request area 32 for my usage. I've been watching HECnet
for a while now, and I'm ready to jump in and start learning. Cory has
mentioned that he will assist me in setting up the proper connections.
So noted.
Johnny
I've almost got him connected...but!
%%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 8-MAY-2013 17:29:29.93 %%%%%%%%%%%
Message from user DECNET on GEWT
DECnet event 4.19, adjacency down, operator initiated
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-08 03:36, Connor Youngquist wrote:
Hello,
I would like to request area 32 for my usage. I've been watching HECnet
for a while now, and I'm ready to jump in and start learning. Cory has
mentioned that he will assist me in setting up the proper connections.
So noted.
Johnny
I've almost got him connected...but!
%%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 8-MAY-2013 17:29:29.93 %%%%%%%%%%%
Message from user DECNET on GEWT
DECnet event 4.19, adjacency down, operator initiated
On May 8, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Dennis Boone wrote:
Yes, I saw the DECnet/Linux code. It's rather puzzling because it seems
to tie into a tun/tap device -- so it expects Ethernet behavior. But
then it converts to short headers, which suggests point to point
behavior. Which is it? The data headers are only a tiny part of the
difference between the two datalink flavors...
If I understood it correctly when I looked at it a while back, Multinet
uses the DECNET point-to-point frame format in the UDP packets it
exchanges with the remote. But Linux DECNET is unlikely to have any
real hardware point-to-point links, and quite reasonably expects any
frames from the local LAN (including those on e.g. a Linux virtual
bridge from a simh instance running locally) to be in the broadcast
format used by DECNET if its interface is an ethernet. Linux DECNET
therefore converts between the two formats as necessary.
Once I got past that, I was able to follow what was going on in packet
captures based on how the Linux multinet program shuffled around array
elements.
Thanks everyone, I believe I got it now.
paul
Yes, I saw the DECnet/Linux code. It's rather puzzling because it seems
to tie into a tun/tap device -- so it expects Ethernet behavior. But
then it converts to short headers, which suggests point to point
behavior. Which is it? The data headers are only a tiny part of the
difference between the two datalink flavors...
If I understood it correctly when I looked at it a while back, Multinet
uses the DECNET point-to-point frame format in the UDP packets it
exchanges with the remote. But Linux DECNET is unlikely to have any
real hardware point-to-point links, and quite reasonably expects any
frames from the local LAN (including those on e.g. a Linux virtual
bridge from a simh instance running locally) to be in the broadcast
format used by DECNET if its interface is an ethernet. Linux DECNET
therefore converts between the two formats as necessary.
Once I got past that, I was able to follow what was going on in packet
captures based on how the Linux multinet program shuffled around array
elements.
De
