On 05/06/12 23:04, Mark Benson wrote:
On 5 Jun 2012, at 19:54, Dave McGuire wrote:
UNIX "sucks" because you don't know how to use it, and its design
differs from the OS that you DO know how to use? Interesting logic. ;)
*poke poke*
Nooow Dave, that kind of humour has gotten you into all sorts of trouble before on ClassicCMP ;) ;)
Besides, anyone who thinks I know how to use VMS is a moron, Im a total VMS noob. I know properly 10x about Linux what I do about VMS. That said there are plenty areas I've never had to deal with and mounting without root privileges is seemingly one of them. Thing is it 'just works' in RSX and VMS it 'just don't work' in Linux, at least at a prompt using the conventional tools.
The specifics of how to accomplish this does, however, differ from
UNIX to UNIX. Under any modern-ish Linux system for example, this is
done automatically upon device insertion by a combination of udev, dbus,
and gvfs. It Just Works, I've done it five or six times since lunch
today. Of course you have to be logged into a "desktop" session in
order for it to work, but 99% of the time, that's what's going on.
Yes. Same as it works just fine in Mac OS X (except when Apple's crummy USB drivers cause another kernel panic). I appreciate that, but because my SimH emulations don't need a GUI... I don't need a GUI. To me if it doesn't work at the command prompt it doesn't work full stop. Stuff that happens in GUIs is written for GUIs, I don't consider GUIs that are often tailored to each distro part of the GNU Linux or UNIX, they are an extra. I'm old fashioned, so sue me.
If you want to do it a different way, say when nobody is logged in,
this is easily accomplished with a udev rule that matches the device
when it's inserted, and takes some action, in this case mounts the
filesystem. If you need to do that, let me know, and I may be able to help.
What I need to do is type 'mount<device> ~/usb' and have it work, without using sudo or su.
To my mind this is the equivalent of ALL DUA0: // MOU DUA0: MARKDISK1 MARK: in VMS... except you don't have top putz about in VMS, it just works.
That was my point, which in itself was kinda tongue-in-cheek anyway :)
Hey guys,
My email client has been slowly squirrelling HECnet emails away in a folder using a rule I set up and then forgot about since I got my shiny new iPad. Is there a cross platform way of achieving uniformity with this kind of thing using gmail hosted mail? Or do I need to configure each client. That'll be a PITA.
Anyway, I'm slowly catching up on the Raspberry Pi/SIMH thread. I had shipping notification yesterday, and this seems like an excellent use of the hardware. Glad to hear it's been an easy ride...
This is also mildly interesting: http://netbsd0.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/retrocomputing-with-vamp-stack-vax.ht…
Always good to see a VAXstation being put to good use.
Now, more importantly, when do we start on that multi-GHz nVAX FPGA implementation?
Regards,
Mark
p.s. Retrochallenge registration is open. It runs for the month of July. Would be great to see some entries from you guys.
http://retrochallenge.org
Regards, Mark
--
--
Mark Wickens
http://wickensonline.co.ukhttp://declegacy.org.ukhttp://retrochallenge.orghttps://twitter.com/#!/@urbancamo
By the way, as a warning...
I seem to remember that DECnet support now have been dropped from Linux. So it might not be in there anymore, if you look at recent versions.
I've also had less than stellar results from trying to talk from Linux to RSX. So it might not work absolutely right under all conditions. Developers mostly (it not only) had VMS machines to test against...
Johnny
On 2012-06-07 00:07, Rob Jarratt wrote:
I reckon it could be done with a single interface.
Will take a look at the specs, a raspberry pi DECnet router would be great!
Regards
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-
hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Mark Benson
Sent: 06 June 2012 22:41
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::
On 6 Jun 2012, at 22:37,<Paul_Koning at Dell.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-06-06 22:40, Rob Jarratt wrote:
...
It would be a fun exercise to turn the bridge into an actual DECnet
router.
One day, when I have a lot of time I might even think about trying
that.
Feel free. The specifications are out there, so it's definitely not an
impossible task. But I guess it will take some work. It would be very nice
if the
bridge did turn into a WAN router...
Johnny
DECnet Phase IV is pretty straightforward. The specs are all out there.
And
much of it is implemented in Linux, so you can find C sources ready to
go...
Even if sample code only does L1 routing, you're nearly there because area
routing is essentially the same thing done a second time on a second set
of
tables.
There may be mileage in building dedicated DECnet bridges/routers using
RaspberryPi boards in a suitable case running a very cut-down Linux with
an
advanced version of the bridge? I am no programming wizard but I am good
at compiling and testing stuff.
Would it require 2 Ethernet interfaces to work or would (like the bridge)
just
one work okay?
--
Mark Benson
http://DECtec.info
Twitter: @DECtecInfo
HECnet: STAR69::MARK
Online Resource& Mailing List for DEC Enthusiasts.
I reckon it could be done with a single interface.
Will take a look at the specs, a raspberry pi DECnet router would be great!
Regards
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-
hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Mark Benson
Sent: 06 June 2012 22:41
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::
On 6 Jun 2012, at 22:37, <Paul_Koning at Dell.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-06-06 22:40, Rob Jarratt wrote:
...
It would be a fun exercise to turn the bridge into an actual DECnet
router.
One day, when I have a lot of time I might even think about trying
that.
Feel free. The specifications are out there, so it's definitely not an
impossible task. But I guess it will take some work. It would be very nice
if the
bridge did turn into a WAN router...
Johnny
DECnet Phase IV is pretty straightforward. The specs are all out there.
And
much of it is implemented in Linux, so you can find C sources ready to
go...
Even if sample code only does L1 routing, you're nearly there because area
routing is essentially the same thing done a second time on a second set
of
tables.
There may be mileage in building dedicated DECnet bridges/routers using
RaspberryPi boards in a suitable case running a very cut-down Linux with
an
advanced version of the bridge? I am no programming wizard but I am good
at compiling and testing stuff.
Would it require 2 Ethernet interfaces to work or would (like the bridge)
just
one work okay?
--
Mark Benson
http://DECtec.info
Twitter: @DECtecInfo
HECnet: STAR69::MARK
Online Resource & Mailing List for DEC Enthusiasts.
On 2012-06-06 23:40, Mark Benson wrote:
On 6 Jun 2012, at 22:37,<Paul_Koning at Dell.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-06-06 22:40, Rob Jarratt wrote:
...
It would be a fun exercise to turn the bridge into an actual DECnet router.
One day, when I have a lot of time I might even think about trying that.
Feel free. The specifications are out there, so it's definitely not an impossible task. But I guess it will take some work. It would be very nice if the bridge did turn into a WAN router...
Johnny
DECnet Phase IV is pretty straightforward. The specs are all out there. And much of it is implemented in Linux, so you can find C sources ready to go... Even if sample code only does L1 routing, you're nearly there because area routing is essentially the same thing done a second time on a second set of tables.
There may be mileage in building dedicated DECnet bridges/routers using RaspberryPi boards in a suitable case running a very cut-down Linux with an advanced version of the bridge? I am no programming wizard but I am good at compiling and testing stuff.
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...
Would it require 2 Ethernet interfaces to work or would (like the bridge) just one work okay?
It would (today) require two ethernet interfaces, in which it routes between. However, talking about connections across the world, you are not even sitting on any shared ethernet networks, so it will not give you what you need for HECnet until you add some point-to-point connection, using IP (and whatever) to some other destination.
Maybe something already exists to accomplish this. Not sure if the GRE implementation in Linux can be used to solve it...
Johnny
On 6 Jun 2012, at 22:37, <Paul_Koning at Dell.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-06-06 22:40, Rob Jarratt wrote:
...
It would be a fun exercise to turn the bridge into an actual DECnet router.
One day, when I have a lot of time I might even think about trying that.
Feel free. The specifications are out there, so it's definitely not an impossible task. But I guess it will take some work. It would be very nice if the bridge did turn into a WAN router...
Johnny
DECnet Phase IV is pretty straightforward. The specs are all out there. And much of it is implemented in Linux, so you can find C sources ready to go... Even if sample code only does L1 routing, you're nearly there because area routing is essentially the same thing done a second time on a second set of tables.
There may be mileage in building dedicated DECnet bridges/routers using RaspberryPi boards in a suitable case running a very cut-down Linux with an advanced version of the bridge? I am no programming wizard but I am good at compiling and testing stuff.
Would it require 2 Ethernet interfaces to work or would (like the bridge) just one work okay?
--
Mark Benson
http://DECtec.info
Twitter: @DECtecInfo
HECnet: STAR69::MARK
Online Resource & Mailing List for DEC Enthusiasts.
On Jun 6, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-06-06 22:40, Rob Jarratt wrote:
...
It would be a fun exercise to turn the bridge into an actual DECnet router.
One day, when I have a lot of time I might even think about trying that.
Feel free. The specifications are out there, so it's definitely not an impossible task. But I guess it will take some work. It would be very nice if the bridge did turn into a WAN router...
Johnny
DECnet Phase IV is pretty straightforward. The specs are all out there. And much of it is implemented in Linux, so you can find C sources ready to go... Even if sample code only does L1 routing, you're nearly there because area routing is essentially the same thing done a second time on a second set of tables.
paul
On 2012-06-06 22:40, Rob Jarratt wrote:
No, you have not misunderstood. You are just not getting the full picture.
Yes, the Cisco box will transport the DECnet frames inside something. At
the
bottom there will be IP, but most likely the DECnet frames are actually
sitting
inside UDP...
So what is the difference from the bridge program, you ask.
Well, simple, the bridge program tries to be clever about which frames to
send where, but it cannot be clever enough at times, and also there are
times when it is forced to send traffic that we might want to limit.
The reason is that the bridge is not really a part of the DECnet traffic,
but is
just relaying packets back and forth, making the two ends of the bridge
appear as if they were on the same ethernet segment.
The Cisco box, on the other hand, is a DECnet routing node. It sits on the
ethernet, and participate fully in the DECnet traffic.
Thanks. Now I get it. I didn't know that anyone other than DEC ever made
something that could route actual DECnet and therefore did not realise that
"actual DECnet router" meant "actual DECnet router" :-) Until now I thought
this was something only available in a VMS router node.
VMS not required... MIM is an area router running RSX. :-)
But yeah, "DECnet router" really meant just that.
It would be a fun exercise to turn the bridge into an actual DECnet router.
One day, when I have a lot of time I might even think about trying that.
Feel free. The specifications are out there, so it's definitely not an impossible task. But I guess it will take some work. It would be very nice if the bridge did turn into a WAN router...
Johnny
On 6/6/2012 5:26 AM, Peter Coghlan wrote:
No, you have not misunderstood. You are just not getting the full
picture. Yes, the Cisco box will transport the DECnet frames inside
something. At the bottom there will be IP, but most likely the DECnet
frames are actually sitting inside UDP...
My understanding of it is that GRE is another IP protocol on the same level
as TCP and UDP rather than using UDP.
You are correct. GRE is Layer 4 just like TCP and UDP.
-brian
On 6/4/2012 8:51 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 06/04/2012 12:13 PM, Brian Hechinger wrote:
SIMH 3.9 somehow kernel paniced my solaris server!
Wow.
-brian
ps: it's older solaris, but stil!
Holy cow! I have NEVER seen that happen. (which is why I run it!)
How the heck did you do that?
Built and ran SIMH 3.9
3.8-1 works just fine (it's what i'm running now) and 3.9 runs fine in my sol11 VM.
-brian
On 6/6/2012 9:04 AM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
Could this work in a domestic environment with an ISP that
gives out dynamic IP addresses?
My head hurts.. Ask for a /56 of IPv6 space. -:)
If there are many users that need this, I will look in to it, I thnk
there was magic that could be applied.
On the side with the dhcp address it's simple. You just make the source the actual interface and not an IP.
interface Tunnel0
description Tunnel for DECnet to Dave M.
no ip address
decnet cost 10
tunnel source FastEthernet0/1
tunnel destination 50.73.179.1
tunnel path-mtu-discovery
end
interface FastEthernet0/1
description Internet Connection (Cable Modem)
ip address dhcp
ip nat outside
ip virtual-reassembly
duplex auto
speed auto
end
Now, in my case it's actually a static IP but RCN require me to actually fetch my IP via DHCP or it won't work.
As to how to handle this on the other end, I have no clue. :)
-brian
