HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

15562 discussions

by jeep＠scshome.net

PATHWORKS for MAC V1.3... -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Gregg Levine Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 11:09 To: hecnet at update.uu.se Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1:: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> wrote: On 8 Jun 2012, at 00:10, Dave McGuire wrote: 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. The upside of this solution is that it's relatively portable though - I'd love to have a DECNET stack on my OS X boxes, for example (in fact as mentioned before latd DOES work on OS X as it's kinda implemented in a similar way).. Sampsa Hello! At one point in time, the OS for the Mac did speak natively to the DEC family of hardware. It would be very interesting to find out how they did it. This would greatly benefit Sampsa at least. As for us? Excellent question. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

13 years

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by gregg.drwho8＠gmail.com

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Mark Benson <md.benson at gmail.com> wrote: On 8 Jun 2012, at 16:09, Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com> wrote: Hello! At one point in time, the OS for the Mac did speak natively to the DEC family of hardware. Do you mean OS X ir Classic Mac OS? It would be very interesting to find out how they did it. This would greatly benefit Sampsa at least. If it's OS X It'd benefit me too provided it still works on modern versions. -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson Hello! Oh okay. Consider this, it was for the classic Mac. And the big guys. Shortly before the PowerPC processor was released. I remember going to a trade show that showed just such a network being there. They had everything named, including a VAX named VAX Masterston. I pointed out that the original name retired from being a gunfighter and ended up becoming a New York sportswriter. He died soon after that and ended up in Woodlawn. I can't recall if he was present at that gunfight. All of that took place sometime in the late 80s. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

13 years

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by md.benson＠gmail.com

On 8 Jun 2012, at 16:09, Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com> wrote: Hello! At one point in time, the OS for the Mac did speak natively to the DEC family of hardware. Do you mean OS X ir Classic Mac OS? It would be very interesting to find out how they did it. This would greatly benefit Sampsa at least. If it's OS X It'd benefit me too provided it still works on modern versions. -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson

13 years

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by gregg.drwho8＠gmail.com

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> wrote: On 8 Jun 2012, at 00:10, Dave McGuire wrote: 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. The upside of this solution is that it's relatively portable though - I'd love to have a DECNET stack on my OS X boxes, for example (in fact as mentioned before latd DOES work on OS X as it's kinda implemented in a similar way).. Sampsa Hello! At one point in time, the OS for the Mac did speak natively to the DEC family of hardware. It would be very interesting to find out how they did it. This would greatly benefit Sampsa at least. As for us? Excellent question. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

13 years

netowrk flapping....

by rok.vidmar＠gmail.com

9 nyc9-peer-1.xe-1-2-0-unit0.tele2.net (130.244.64.138) 110 ms 110 ms 110 ms 10 198.32.118.31 (198.32.118.31) 100 ms 110 ms 110 ms 11 69.21.253.154 (69.21.253.154) 160 ms 140 ms 150 ms 12 * * * Route 13 cr2-TE-0-3-0-0.frankfurtft3.savvis.net (204.70.206.157) 21 ms 21 ms 21 ms 14 cr1-bundle-pos1.NewYork.savvis.net (204.70.196.137) 119 ms 119 ms 119 ms 15 er2-tengig-9-5.newyork.savvis.net (204.70.224.253) 118 ms 118 ms 118 ms 16 fortressitx.NewYork.savvis.net (206.24.195.134) 118 ms 118 ms 118 ms 17 wltonhhed11-gi1-2-1.network.tds.net (64.50.239.94) 133 ms 126 ms 125 ms 18 h69-21-253-154.wltonh.dedicated.static.tds.net (69.21.253.154) 158 ms 155 ms 156 ms seems to be OK. -- Regards, Rok

13 years

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

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-08 16:42, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2012-06-08 01:13, Dave McGuire wrote: 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...? Yes. Well, actually I wasn't describing it in a more abstract way, but in a way more in terms of why you need promiscuous mode instead of what it actually does on the interface. But reading it through now, I see that there was one implicit assumption in my text which I could have pointed out. If you need to share the device with the system, while using a different MAC address, you need to place the device in promiscuous mode. And such is the case if we talk DECnet, since DECnet requires that you use a specific MAC address which is not the same as the default MAC address of a device. That's true if you have a NIC and driver that only allows one individual address per physical MAC. Most modern NICs allow multiple individual addresses since the address filter is an exact match on N (say, 16 or so) addresses, and it doesn't care whether those are individual or multicast. The host OS drivers may or may not export that feature. If they do, then you don't need promiscuous mode. If they don't, or if the NIC is old enough that it can't do this, then you do. Interesting. I wasn't aware that NICs had filters that didn't make a difference between multicast and unicast anymore... Seems potentially bad if you start using IP multicast, since that can easily become a whole bunch of multicast addresses, and then I guess you'll have to turn on promiscuous mode anyway. The old DEC controllers for PDP-11s have a list of multicast addresses that you want to receive, so they do filter on multicast, but that list is for multicast only. There is only one unicast address. (Those controllers also have a separate multicast promiscuous mode, except it don't work on the DEQNA and DELQA...) Johnny

13 years

New bridge.c feedback

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-08 16:39, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2012-06-08 08:39, Boyanich, Alastair wrote: Hi Johnny, Your welcome. Yes, it's pretty chatty. MIPSPro and DECC are my favourite C compilers as they're quite anal and chatty warning wise. Yeah. gcc is stupid. They added -Wall several years ago, but apparently people got upset by it's anal reporting, so they dumbed it down. So -Wall does not turn on all warnings anymore. And I just don't have the enery right now to figure out what more switches I should throw on it to actually make it complain about everything... If you really want lots of warnings, say -Wall -Wpedantic. But in fact -Wall is quite good in more recent versions of gcc. The issues mentioned before would certainly be caught by GCC 4.6 or later. Well, with one caveat: quite a number of the things that gcc can warn about are found as a consequence of the deeper analysis done when you turn on optimization. So you need at least -O1 and more likely -O2 if you want to get good warnings. Actually, I didn't get any warnings with -Wall, for which the mips compiler complained about. (Well, I had already fixed two issues, but the others gcc didn't complain about.) Thanks, however. It was -Wpendantic that I was thinking of, even though I never seem to be able to remember the name. But I still think it is backwards to have a -Wall, which do not enable all warnings. :-) Johnny

13 years

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

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2012-06-08 01:13, Dave McGuire wrote: 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...? Yes. Well, actually I wasn't describing it in a more abstract way, but in a way more in terms of why you need promiscuous mode instead of what it actually does on the interface. But reading it through now, I see that there was one implicit assumption in my text which I could have pointed out. If you need to share the device with the system, while using a different MAC address, you need to place the device in promiscuous mode. And such is the case if we talk DECnet, since DECnet requires that you use a specific MAC address which is not the same as the default MAC address of a device. That's true if you have a NIC and driver that only allows one individual address per physical MAC. Most modern NICs allow multiple individual addresses since the address filter is an exact match on N (say, 16 or so) addresses, and it doesn't care whether those are individual or multicast. The host OS drivers may or may not export that feature. If they do, then you don't need promiscuous mode. If they don't, or if the NIC is old enough that it can't do this, then you do. paul

13 years

New bridge.c feedback

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2012-06-08 08:39, Boyanich, Alastair wrote: Hi Johnny, Your welcome. Yes, it's pretty chatty. MIPSPro and DECC are my favourite C compilers as they're quite anal and chatty warning wise. Yeah. gcc is stupid. They added -Wall several years ago, but apparently people got upset by it's anal reporting, so they dumbed it down. So -Wall does not turn on all warnings anymore. And I just don't have the enery right now to figure out what more switches I should throw on it to actually make it complain about everything... If you really want lots of warnings, say -Wall -Wpedantic. But in fact -Wall is quite good in more recent versions of gcc. The issues mentioned before would certainly be caught by GCC 4.6 or later. Well, with one caveat: quite a number of the things that gcc can warn about are found as a consequence of the deeper analysis done when you turn on optimization. So you need at least -O1 and more likely -O2 if you want to get good warnings. paul

13 years

Introducing myself... and my little network

by pechter＠gmail.com

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote: 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 My wife refers to the 11/7xx boxes I worked on as my old girlfriends. If one more piece of hardware hits the house I'll need the same lawyer. As soon as I can find it a good home I'm getting rid of my Vaxstation and going to go to only emulated hardware under VMware Workstation/ESXi/XenServer at home. Bill Pechter, N2RDI Holmdel, NJ -- d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com

13 years

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet