Ok. I've placed a newer version up for grabs. You can find it at http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet
There are various minor fixes and potential bugs fixed. I've also added some more obscure features, that people might find useful sometimes...
Johnny
As I read somewhere:
"DEC had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now?"
(In referring to DECs slogan in the 80s: DEC has it now)
I agree. DEC engineering was pretty good. Too bad some other parts of that company totally lost it.
Johnny
H Vlems wrote:
I agree with you that geographical separation may just as well be handled
with circuit routing (level 1 routing). Which was one of the reasons DECnet
over DDCMP was such a nice idea, you could set this up with modems only. The
speed was low of course.
Area routing overhead on a flat LAN was fairly rare I guess. As you've
explained, area routing was more an address space solution rather than a
connectivity solution. Putting all these nodes on a switched network was
something they hadn't seen (at least the persons I talked to in those days).
We were the second site to use FDDI too (remember the Gigaswitches?) and I'm
glad to say that everything worked as advertised. DEC engineering was
unsurpassed IMHO.
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: woensdag, juni 2010 14:45
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
H Vlems wrote:
Johnny, the original DECnet manuals showed pictures of area routers that
were interconnected by WAN links. Each site had its own area number. In
fact
the name "area routing" implies clearly that the concept was meant to set
up
DECnet networks that were geographically separated.
Certainly. But that does not imply that just because you have physically different locations that they must be in different areas. And areas don't necessarily imply geography... :-)
Level 1 routers does exactly the same job, the same way, but keeps it within one area.
But basically, the reasons for the different "levels" are originally technical. You have segments, which more or less means directly connected machines.
Then you have an area, which connects these segments. Traffic within a segment can be fairly high. Between segments there is much less traffic, since only traffic actually meant for a destination at the other end is going through, and then of course the routing messages of the level 1 routers.
Level 1 routers knows where all machines in the same area are located, and knows the most efficient way to any node within the same area. However, it only keeps track of the closest area router, and knows nothing about any other area.
Area routers work just like level 1 routers, but they also have an area routing table, so they know the most efficient path to an area router for any area.
So, an end node only knows what machines are on the same segment, and which is the closest level 1 router. Level 1 routers knows where all machines are in the same area, and knows where the closest area router is.
Area routers knows where every machine is on the local area, and also where all area routers are.
Now, this means that a machine that sits in one area will not neccesarily take the shortest path to a machine in another area. In fact, it will not neccesarily take the shortest path even to another machine in the same area. But that's another story. :-)
For most points and purposes, a level 1 router and an area router will give you exactly the same effect.
So, just because you have machines that are physically remote is by no mean a reason for them to be in separate areas. A level 1 router will solve that just as well.
What areas bring to the table is essentially just that you expand the address space, and add another level of hierarchy to the network. It is (obviously) up to you how you want to interpret that extra level. I'm not saying that you cannot use it to match network hierarchy to geography, just that there is no technical reason to align things that way.
I ran a fairly large DECnet environment 20 years ago with >20 PDP-11's,
80
VAX systems >600 pc's and several alpha's, plus a few unix systems that
ran
DECnet too (in those days DECnet was the multiplatform protocol of
choice).
I seprataed each factory in its own DECnet area. DEC Holland got midly
interested in the design because they wondered whether the level 2 routing
overhead wouldn't hurt network performance. Which it didn't :-)
Can't see why it should. If you have a fairly busy network, the overhead of the level 2 routing packets is very low. And if the network is mostly idle, you have the capacity to spare anyway.
I'm surprised if DEC Holland was that curious, or didn't know better, since DEC's internal network was way larger at that time.
They had already passed 60.000 nodes on Easynet (which was the name of the internal network). I worked at DEC for a while in the 80s, and Easynet worked just fine, and was very nice.
If I remember right, areas were sortof allocated by country, although some places (like the US) used several, while some places shared one between several countries.
One reason for separating systems in different areas was that rebooting
the
pc's would generate so many DECnet state up and down messages that
PDP-11's
and the older VAX systems choked in their console output.
Yeah, that can be an annoyance. But that's what the logging filters are there for.
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: maandag, juni 2010 21:11
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
Brian Hechinger wrote:
Ok, so I should be getting to my plans soon enough here and had some
questions
about how I should set this up.
I'm going to install SIMH on the machine in colo (100mbit connection here
in
the US, so might be useful as a "hub") as well as a small handful of
boxes
here at home.
Sounds good.
Should I just use one area? What's the best way to set that up?
Areas in DECnet are not really meant to be associated with physical location, but rather with organizational. So keep it within one area.
For physically different locations, you might want to use level 1 routers, though. But as the internet nowadays is so fast, using just a bridge, and pretend that it's all one ethernet segment also works just
fine.
Johnny
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2969 - datum van uitgifte:
06/28/10
20:35:00
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2969 - datum van uitgifte: 06/28/10
20:35:00
Hi.
H Vlems wrote:
OK, let's try the bridge option first. Could you give me a sample .conf file
that I can use?
Hmm. Not one that you can use straight away, no.
However, it should look something like this:
================
[bridge]
local <your ethernet interface name>
update psilo.update.uu.se:4711
[decnet]
local
update
=================
And that's it. What your local ethernet name is, I have no idea.
My external IP address is:
Name: osmium.homeip.net
Address: 87.209.50.192
That is something I need for my side of the bridge. In addition, I also need to know what port number you will be using.
I assume that a NAT entry is needed on my ADSL router, right? Would that be
for port 4711 (as in eau de cologne ??)
Yes, 4711 is named after the water from Cologne. :-)
(Very oldish hacker folklore that I suspect people nowadays might not know...)
And yes, if you have NAT running, you will need to forward traffic between your box, at whatever port you are using, and psilo.update.uu.se:4711. And this is UDP traffic.
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: woensdag, juni 2010 14:16
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
Hi, Hans.
H Vlems wrote:
OK Johnny, talk to me :-)
This is my plan: I intend to modify two systems to try the connection to
HECnet.
1) I have a linux system under Fedora 9 that will run the bridge software
and an Alpha Server 1200 under VMS V8.3 and DECnet phase IV, address
1.1010.
That should work without any strange problems. You'll probably want to connect the bridge to me in that case. Let me know when you are ready to try.
2) a VAXstation 4000 model 90A, running VMS V7.3 and DECnet phase V, in
area
44.
I'd like to try that connection without the linux system.
You need to find someone who can act as the other end in this case. Which I suspect meaning someone running phase V and as an area router. I don't know who might be doing this. Maybe someone who do can speak up.
Anyone know if this would be compatible with DECnet over IP as Multinet does it?
Option 2 is my preferred situation since it removes a by and large unknown
factor from the equation (the linux box).
Sure. We just need to identify someone you can connect to.
So, what do I need to know and to do to make this work?
Someone to connect to...
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: maandag, juni 2010 21:03
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
H Vlems wrote:
What I meant with the phase III-IV-V answer is that direct connectivity
between a phase V and phase III system won't work. But poor man's routing
will work with a phase IV node in between. Functionality of course is
limited by the phase III host :-)
I wonder if phase III to phase V neccesarily will not work. However, DEC never guaranteed that it will work, nor did they ever try it.
But you're absolutely right that very few people will have a phase III
system, RT-11 being the most likely candidate?
Probably. Or if someone is running some old versions of other systems.
I've seen the bridge program, but am not sure how to make the .conf file
work. Is it possible to use DECnet address 1.1010 to try and make this
work?
Yes. 1.1010 is not used by anyone, so that node number would be ok to use to test.
But you also need to talk with me (or someone else) with the bridge running, to act as the remote end.
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: maandag, juni 2010 11:02
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
Hi.
H Vlems wrote:
DECnet phase IV nodes are backwards compatible with phase III.
Yes. But the question here was if phase V will interoperate with phase III. I don't know the answer to that one, but on the other hand, I don't think anyone around is running phase III anyway.
There are no restrictions in functionality between phase IV nodes and
phase
V as seen by the unpriviledged user. Area routing may be an issue on
Alpha,
and of course ncl is more of a pain to remember than ncp ;-)
True, as far as that goes.
However, I am not sure that a phase V node can operate as a phase IV area router.
Someone else pointed out that although DEC claimed that alphas could not be area routers, that information is incorrect, and you can just tell an Alpha VMS phase IV node to be an area router, if you want to.
However, DECnet+ is phase V, and all bets are off. :-)
And yes, not only are the NCL commands more difficult to remember (atleast for me), the node name management is way more difficult as well. Do anyone know how you copy a nodename database from another machine with DECnet+?
Two questions:
1-May I use area 44?
Sure.
2-Is there a short guide to set up DECnet over IP to connect to HECnet?
Not that I know of. Maybe Mark Wickens have something on hecnet.eu?
My page (http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html) only have information about the bridge.
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Marc Chametzky
Verzonden: maandag, juni 2010 0:04
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
DECnet-Plus isn't
able to connect, or at least reliably connect to all OS's that can
potentially be on HECnet. I forget what all OS's I was having issues
with, I know one was RSTS/E v10.1, but I want to say it also included
VAX/VMS. Once I *upgraded* my Alpha running OpenVMS to DECnet Phase IV,
all these issues went away. These were things as simple as SET HOST.
It's probably that DECnet-Plus (Phase V) cannot speak with DECnet Phase III (such as on RSTS/E and TOPS-10/20). That's my guess anyway.
Phase V should be able to communicate with VAX/VMS since that's Phase IV, which is the gold standard of DECnet, IMHO.
--Marc
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2966 - datum van uitgifte:
06/27/10
08:35:00
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2968 - datum van uitgifte:
06/28/10
08:37:00
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2969 - datum van uitgifte:
06/28/10
20:35:00
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2969 - datum van uitgifte: 06/28/10
20:35:00
I agree with you that geographical separation may just as well be handled
with circuit routing (level 1 routing). Which was one of the reasons DECnet
over DDCMP was such a nice idea, you could set this up with modems only. The
speed was low of course.
Area routing overhead on a flat LAN was fairly rare I guess. As you've
explained, area routing was more an address space solution rather than a
connectivity solution. Putting all these nodes on a switched network was
something they hadn't seen (at least the persons I talked to in those days).
We were the second site to use FDDI too (remember the Gigaswitches?) and I'm
glad to say that everything worked as advertised. DEC engineering was
unsurpassed IMHO.
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: woensdag, juni 2010 14:45
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
H Vlems wrote:
Johnny, the original DECnet manuals showed pictures of area routers that
were interconnected by WAN links. Each site had its own area number. In
fact
the name "area routing" implies clearly that the concept was meant to set
up
DECnet networks that were geographically separated.
Certainly. But that does not imply that just because you have physically
different locations that they must be in different areas. And areas
don't necessarily imply geography... :-)
Level 1 routers does exactly the same job, the same way, but keeps it
within one area.
But basically, the reasons for the different "levels" are originally
technical. You have segments, which more or less means directly
connected machines.
Then you have an area, which connects these segments. Traffic within a
segment can be fairly high. Between segments there is much less traffic,
since only traffic actually meant for a destination at the other end is
going through, and then of course the routing messages of the level 1
routers.
Level 1 routers knows where all machines in the same area are located,
and knows the most efficient way to any node within the same area.
However, it only keeps track of the closest area router, and knows
nothing about any other area.
Area routers work just like level 1 routers, but they also have an area
routing table, so they know the most efficient path to an area router
for any area.
So, an end node only knows what machines are on the same segment, and
which is the closest level 1 router. Level 1 routers knows where all
machines are in the same area, and knows where the closest area router is.
Area routers knows where every machine is on the local area, and also
where all area routers are.
Now, this means that a machine that sits in one area will not
neccesarily take the shortest path to a machine in another area. In
fact, it will not neccesarily take the shortest path even to another
machine in the same area. But that's another story. :-)
For most points and purposes, a level 1 router and an area router will
give you exactly the same effect.
So, just because you have machines that are physically remote is by no
mean a reason for them to be in separate areas. A level 1 router will
solve that just as well.
What areas bring to the table is essentially just that you expand the
address space, and add another level of hierarchy to the network. It is
(obviously) up to you how you want to interpret that extra level. I'm
not saying that you cannot use it to match network hierarchy to
geography, just that there is no technical reason to align things that way.
I ran a fairly large DECnet environment 20 years ago with >20 PDP-11's,
80
VAX systems >600 pc's and several alpha's, plus a few unix systems that
ran
DECnet too (in those days DECnet was the multiplatform protocol of
choice).
I seprataed each factory in its own DECnet area. DEC Holland got midly
interested in the design because they wondered whether the level 2 routing
overhead wouldn't hurt network performance. Which it didn't :-)
Can't see why it should. If you have a fairly busy network, the overhead
of the level 2 routing packets is very low. And if the network is mostly
idle, you have the capacity to spare anyway.
I'm surprised if DEC Holland was that curious, or didn't know better,
since DEC's internal network was way larger at that time.
They had already passed 60.000 nodes on Easynet (which was the name of
the internal network). I worked at DEC for a while in the 80s, and
Easynet worked just fine, and was very nice.
If I remember right, areas were sortof allocated by country, although
some places (like the US) used several, while some places shared one
between several countries.
One reason for separating systems in different areas was that rebooting
the
pc's would generate so many DECnet state up and down messages that
PDP-11's
and the older VAX systems choked in their console output.
Yeah, that can be an annoyance. But that's what the logging filters are
there for.
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: maandag, juni 2010 21:11
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
Brian Hechinger wrote:
Ok, so I should be getting to my plans soon enough here and had some
questions
about how I should set this up.
I'm going to install SIMH on the machine in colo (100mbit connection here
in
the US, so might be useful as a "hub") as well as a small handful of
boxes
here at home.
Sounds good.
Should I just use one area? What's the best way to set that up?
Areas in DECnet are not really meant to be associated with physical
location, but rather with organizational. So keep it within one area.
For physically different locations, you might want to use level 1
routers, though. But as the internet nowadays is so fast, using just a
bridge, and pretend that it's all one ethernet segment also works just
fine.
Johnny
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2969 - datum van uitgifte:
06/28/10
20:35:00
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2969 - datum van uitgifte: 06/28/10
20:35:00
OK, let's try the bridge option first. Could you give me a sample .conf file
that I can use?
My external IP address is:
Name: osmium.homeip.net
Address: 87.209.50.192
I assume that a NAT entry is needed on my ADSL router, right? Would that be
for port 4711 (as in eau de cologne ??)
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: woensdag, juni 2010 14:16
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
Hi, Hans.
H Vlems wrote:
OK Johnny, talk to me :-)
This is my plan: I intend to modify two systems to try the connection to
HECnet.
1) I have a linux system under Fedora 9 that will run the bridge software
and an Alpha Server 1200 under VMS V8.3 and DECnet phase IV, address
1.1010.
That should work without any strange problems. You'll probably want to
connect the bridge to me in that case. Let me know when you are ready to
try.
2) a VAXstation 4000 model 90A, running VMS V7.3 and DECnet phase V, in
area
44.
I'd like to try that connection without the linux system.
You need to find someone who can act as the other end in this case.
Which I suspect meaning someone running phase V and as an area router. I
don't know who might be doing this. Maybe someone who do can speak up.
Anyone know if this would be compatible with DECnet over IP as Multinet
does it?
Option 2 is my preferred situation since it removes a by and large unknown
factor from the equation (the linux box).
Sure. We just need to identify someone you can connect to.
So, what do I need to know and to do to make this work?
Someone to connect to...
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: maandag, juni 2010 21:03
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
H Vlems wrote:
What I meant with the phase III-IV-V answer is that direct connectivity
between a phase V and phase III system won't work. But poor man's routing
will work with a phase IV node in between. Functionality of course is
limited by the phase III host :-)
I wonder if phase III to phase V neccesarily will not work. However, DEC
never guaranteed that it will work, nor did they ever try it.
But you're absolutely right that very few people will have a phase III
system, RT-11 being the most likely candidate?
Probably. Or if someone is running some old versions of other systems.
I've seen the bridge program, but am not sure how to make the .conf file
work. Is it possible to use DECnet address 1.1010 to try and make this
work?
Yes. 1.1010 is not used by anyone, so that node number would be ok to
use to test.
But you also need to talk with me (or someone else) with the bridge
running, to act as the remote end.
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: maandag, juni 2010 11:02
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
Hi.
H Vlems wrote:
DECnet phase IV nodes are backwards compatible with phase III.
Yes. But the question here was if phase V will interoperate with phase
III. I don't know the answer to that one, but on the other hand, I don't
think anyone around is running phase III anyway.
There are no restrictions in functionality between phase IV nodes and
phase
V as seen by the unpriviledged user. Area routing may be an issue on
Alpha,
and of course ncl is more of a pain to remember than ncp ;-)
True, as far as that goes.
However, I am not sure that a phase V node can operate as a phase IV
area router.
Someone else pointed out that although DEC claimed that alphas could not
be area routers, that information is incorrect, and you can just tell an
Alpha VMS phase IV node to be an area router, if you want to.
However, DECnet+ is phase V, and all bets are off. :-)
And yes, not only are the NCL commands more difficult to remember
(atleast for me), the node name management is way more difficult as
well. Do anyone know how you copy a nodename database from another
machine with DECnet+?
Two questions:
1-May I use area 44?
Sure.
2-Is there a short guide to set up DECnet over IP to connect to HECnet?
Not that I know of. Maybe Mark Wickens have something on hecnet.eu?
My page (http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html) only have information
about the bridge.
Johnny
Hans
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Marc Chametzky
Verzonden: maandag, juni 2010 0:04
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Attaching to hecnet
DECnet-Plus isn't
able to connect, or at least reliably connect to all OS's that can
potentially be on HECnet. I forget what all OS's I was having issues
with, I know one was RSTS/E v10.1, but I want to say it also included
VAX/VMS. Once I *upgraded* my Alpha running OpenVMS to DECnet Phase IV,
all these issues went away. These were things as simple as SET HOST.
It's probably that DECnet-Plus (Phase V) cannot speak with DECnet Phase
III (such as on RSTS/E and TOPS-10/20). That's my guess anyway.
Phase V should be able to communicate with VAX/VMS since that's Phase
IV, which is the gold standard of DECnet, IMHO.
--Marc
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2966 - datum van uitgifte:
06/27/10
08:35:00
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2968 - datum van uitgifte:
06/28/10
08:37:00
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2969 - datum van uitgifte:
06/28/10
20:35:00
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 9.0.830 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2969 - datum van uitgifte: 06/28/10
20:35:00
Hello everyone,
days ago there was some debate about which Digital systems other than VMS
could run DECnet Phase IV... This is the proof that TOPS-10 can! :)
This is a CTERM connection:
| ALPHA::SYSTEM$ set host dieci
|
| T10 DECnet node DIECI 10:16:08 TTY4 system 2034
| Connected to Node ALPHA Line # 0
| Please LOGIN
|
| .login 1,2
| Job 4 T10 DECnet node DIECI TTY4
| [LGNJSP Other jobs same PPN]
| 10:16 1-Jul-10 Thursday
|
| .systat
|
| Status of T10 DECnet node DIECI at 10:16:32 on 01-Jul-110
|
| Uptime 23:14:34, 88% Null time = 88% Idle + 0% Lost, 10% Overhead
| 15 Jobs in use out of 120. 15 logged in, 13 detached.
|
| Job Who Line# What Size(P) State Run Time
|
| 1 [OPR] DET751 STOMPR 13+12 SL 0 01
| 2 [OPR] CTY OPR 67+40 HB 0
| 3 [OPR] DET751 FAL-10 118+40 SL 0
| 4 [OPR] 4 SYSTAT 23+SPY RN 0
| .
| .
| .
|
| .kjob
| [LGNJSP Other jobs same PPN]
| Job 4 User OPERATOR [1,2]
| Logged-off TTY4 at 10:16:33 on 1-Jul-10
| Runtime: 0:00:00, KCS:0, Connect time: 0:00:32
| Disk Reads:0, Writes:0, Blocks saved:10
|
| %REM-S-END, control returned to node ALPHA::
| ALPHA::SYSTEM$
This is the output from NCP:
| ALPHA::SYSTEM$ mcr ncp tell dieci sho exe char
|
|
| Node Volatile Characteristics as of 1-JUL-2010 10:30:06
|
| Executor node = 1.1010 (DIECI)
|
| Identification = DECnet-10 Version 4.0
| Management version = V4.0.0
| Loop count = 1
| Loop length = 127
| Loop Data type = mixed
| Incoming timer = 30
| Outgoing timer = 60
| NSP version = V4.0.0
| .
| .
| .
And, on the other side, this is an incoming DAP connection:
| OPR>sho sta fal
| OPR>
| 10:33:09 -- System Device Status --
|
| FAL-Stream Status:
| Strm Status Node Connect Time Bytes
| ---- --------------- ------ ------------ -------
| 0 Active ALPHA 00:00:27 0
| Reading TSU:TSU.MIC[1,2] for user 1,2
| 1 Idle
| 2 Idle
This is a DAP copy from VMS to TOPS-10:
| .r nft
|
| *copy =alpha::nodes.txt/user
| For remote alpha::nodes.txt
| User-id: system
| Account:
| Password:
| DSKB:[1,2]NODES.TXT <= ALPHA::SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]NODES.TXT.1
| Total of 296 words in 3 blocks in 1 file at 23877 baud
| *
All the usual services work both ways, with the sole exception of Phone that
doesn't exist on TOPS-10. I'm still learning how to use and configure the
Thing, and as a matter of facts I'm still running with security disabled.
The OS is TOPS-10 7.04 with the latest patches (TSU04, December 1990). The
emulator is Ken Harrenstien's KLH10 release 2.0h (Panda distribution) and
the tape images come from the Trailing Edge PDP-10 repository.
Thanks to everyone at alt.sys.pdp10 and to Beethoven's 9th Symphony. :)
Bye,
G.
P.S.: DIECI means ten in Italian. :)
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 05:02:37PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
In that case you should definitely not use my bridge...
Hmmm, I'll have to see what I want to do back to the house then. I'll deal
with that when the time comes. :-D
The bridge program will carry a lot of broadcast traffic (well, a lot is maybe saying much) that you don't really need, and which you will not get if you run a DECnet over IP thingie.
L1? L2? As in layers in the network stack?
I'm talking DECnet Level 1 or Level 2.
In talking to Steve I think I've sorted out how I want to get things setup.
Ah. Now I got it. :-)
Ok. Good if you have sorted things out.
Johnny
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Kari Uusim ki wrote:
The multicast address AB 00 00 03 00 00 is to all Phase IV routers (=endnode hello)
The multicast address AB 00 00 04 00 00 is to all Phase IV endnodes
(=router hello)
All Level 1 and Level 2 routers should send router hellos to endnodes and endnodes should send endnode hellos so that routers know of all endnodes.
Sigh. Why don't people read what I write? Note that *all* machines sends hello messages to AB 00 00 03 00 00.
Only level 2 routers sends anything on any other address, but they send on AB 00 00 03 00 00 too.
And ignore that. I was using a too small sample when I wrote, so it wasn't the full picture of things...
Johnny
Paul Koning wrote:
Paul Koning wrote:
...
The way this works is that there are two multicast addresses used on
Ethernet segments. (Well, three later on, a separate one for all L2
routers.) One is "all routers", one is "all endnodes". Routers
listen
to the first, endnodes to the second. Hellos are sent to "all
routers"
so ONLY routers hear hellos. Both endnodes and routers send hellos
(different types). So routers build a list of all the nodes on each
interface. The routers on an Ethernet pick one to be the designated
router, and only that router sends a hello to "all endnodes".
That's
how endnodes know the DR.
Not really.
end-nodes send endnode-hello messages to ab:00:00:03:00:00
l1 routers send router-hello messages to ab:00:00:03:00:00
l2 routers send router-hello messages to ab:00:00:03:00:00,
ab:00:00:04:00:00 and 09:00:2b:02:00:00 (exactly which of these last
two
addresses are sent to seems to differ from node to node, and I haven't
figured out exactly how yet).
That fits what I said. Ab:00:00:03:00:00 is "all routers". So the
hellos sent to that address are received by routers but not by endnodes.
Ab:00:00:04:00:00 is "all endnodes". The hello that goes to that
address is from the designated router. In your example I guess that was
an L2 router but that's just a coincidence. And there will only be one
router (L1 or L2) sending to that address, the designated router.
Ah. I was sampling from a too short time. Eventually I received a router hello message on ab:00:00:04:00:00 from an L1 router as well.
Ok. I was making the wrong assumptions because of this. Now you made me read the spec instead, which was good. Thanks. :-)
09:00:2b:02:00:00 was a later addition. It's not in the routing 2.0.0
spec, it would be in the 2.1.0 spec if we could find one. That would be
the "all L2 routers" address. The idea for adding that address was to
allow L2 routing messages to be sent to that address instead of the "all
routers" address, so L2 route updates would not bother L1 routers.
Makes sense.
...
So, obviously, routers and endnodes both send, and listen to the same
messages.
No, you're making an incorrect assumption. The multicast addresses you
send to, and the ones you listen to, are not necessarily the same. In
IP, yes (ARPs go to broadcast and everyone listens to that). Not so in
DECnet. End nodes listen to all-endnodes and send to all-routers.
Routers listen to all-routers and send to all-routers and (if DR) to
all-endnodes.
Yes. I made the wrong assumption. Looked at too little data.
DECnet very deliberately used multicast rather than broadcast because
control packets are of interest only to some of the nodes, so by using a
specific multicast address, you can enable that if you need to hear the
traffic and disable it if you don't.
Which is a good thing.
In fact, it's clear that the existence of broadcast is a design error
(and so is the fact that ARP uses it). Broadcast is defined as "traffic
that everyone wants to hear" and there IS no such traffic. For example,
you don't want to hear ARPs unless you speak IP, so clearly those should
have used an "All IP nodes" multicast address.
Yep. Not to mention some protocols designed be people using PC machines running DOS...
Johnny
Paul Koning wrote:
Paul Koning wrote:
...
The routing message size isn't an issue in Phase IV because the data
can
be sent in pieces. That was another important change from Phase
III,
which always sends the route data for all nodes (up to 255 of them)
whether there is a change or not. 255 nodes just barely fits into a
standard DDCMP packet, but 1023 nodes would not. (Nor in a standard
Ethernet frame, for that matter.) And it's wasteful to send data
that
hasn't changed. So Phase IV has a way to send routing data for
selected
nodes.
Looking at traffic, I'd say that systems seems to be sending out
routing
packet updates although nothing is changing.
Oh right... I forgot one detail.
Routing updates are sent when something changes, and those (in Phase IV)
can be optimized to omit what hasn't changed.
In addition, full routing messages (all destinations) are sent
periodically. That makes the system "self-stabilizing": if any node is
confused about the routing data, it will reasonably soon be straightened
out by a full update.
Yes. That more match with the reality as I can observe it. :-)
Johnny
