Paul Koning wrote:
Indeed. Ken Olsen never understood marketing, and he understood
sales
even less.
..
It didn't really improve when KO left the building either...
True, because KO was replaced by a weasel whose only goal was to chop
the company into pieces and sell the remnants to unsuspecting buyers for
big money.
Glad we totally agree on Palmer's merits... :-)
KO at least cared for the company, even if he totally messed some things up.
Palmer was more interested in maximizing his own bonus.
Ah well, the irony of it all... But it's a good legacy of the engineering that 30 year old machines are still being used in production around the world.
Johnny
Indeed. Ken Olsen never understood marketing, and he understood
sales
even less.
..
It didn't really improve when KO left the building either...
True, because KO was replaced by a weasel whose only goal was to chop
the company into pieces and sell the remnants to unsuspecting buyers for
big money.
paul
Paul Koning wrote:
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.
Indeed. Ken Olsen never understood marketing, and he understood sales
even less.
When working at a (successful) startup, I often told my colleagues in
sales and marketing how enjoyable it was to work with excellent sales
and marketing people, because as a former DEC employee I understood very
well how badly it can hurt to work with bad ones.
It didn't really improve when KO left the building either...
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.
Indeed. Ken Olsen never understood marketing, and he understood sales
even less.
When working at a (successful) startup, I often told my colleagues in
sales and marketing how enjoyable it was to work with excellent sales
and marketing people, because as a former DEC employee I understood very
well how badly it can hurt to work with bad ones.
paul
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. :)
