I'm not having much luck looking for newer ones. It may be possible to
reverse engineer the differences from the implementation source code, if
available. I looked a bit at DECnet/E but it's not easily to parse...
Keep in mind the DECnet version handling and reserved field rules.
When mixed versions communicate, both sides report their version and the
higher version system is then responsible for speaking in a way that the
older system will understand.
"Reserved" means "send zero, ignore on receipt". It most definitely
does NOT mean "check on receive that this is zero", that's a silly
mistake all too often make in protocol design. This too is for mixed
version handling. If a new flag can safely be ignored by an older
system, then the newer system can simply send that flag in what used to
be a reserved field, and the right thing happens.
Finally, proxy was originally a VMS specific enhancement and was adopted
in some other implementations (I know DECnet/E picked it up, at least in
a semi-compatible form). I'm not sure that it was ever specified in an
architecture spec.
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of gerry77 at mail.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:46 PM
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: [HECnet] DECnet session control specification
Hello everyone!
During the last week or so I've spent many hours studying some DECnet
traffic because I was willing to better understand its inner working.
Well, I've discovered that the session control specification commonly
available on the Internet (V1.0) is not the latest, and it seems that
another newer version is not readily available.
While other DECnet protocols such as DRP and NSP appear to be current
(and
in facts their description matches actual data captured from the
Ethernet),
the SCP is obviously different both in formal definition and in
practice.
For example, the specification states that for V1.0 the version field
should
be 000 binary, but VMS sets it to 001 and a bit field that should be
reserved for future use and always set to zero has actually a meaning
(at
least one bit seems to be used to signal proxy access requests).
So the question is: does anyone here has a copy of a newer session
control
specification or at least knows which are the the differences between
V1.0
and the following (V1.1?) version?
Thank you very much,
G.
Hello everyone!
During the last week or so I've spent many hours studying some DECnet
traffic because I was willing to better understand its inner working.
Well, I've discovered that the session control specification commonly
available on the Internet (V1.0) is not the latest, and it seems that
another newer version is not readily available.
While other DECnet protocols such as DRP and NSP appear to be current (and
in facts their description matches actual data captured from the Ethernet),
the SCP is obviously different both in formal definition and in practice.
For example, the specification states that for V1.0 the version field should
be 000 binary, but VMS sets it to 001 and a bit field that should be
reserved for future use and always set to zero has actually a meaning (at
least one bit seems to be used to signal proxy access requests).
So the question is: does anyone here has a copy of a newer session control
specification or at least knows which are the the differences between V1.0
and the following (V1.1?) version?
Thank you very much,
G.
At 2:26 PM +0000 1/5/10, Mark Wickens wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 06:24 -0800, Bob Armstrong wrote:
>Anyway it seems that whenever I run Personal Alpha any Simh machines I
>have running completely pause until I shutdown the Alpha simulator has
>anyone else had this problem ?
Isn't Personal Alpha a version of the Charon-AXP emulator? I've never
used Personal Alpha, but I am using the free version of Charon-AXP and I can
tell you that, unlike simh, it has no OpenVMS idle detection. Charon will
always use 100% of whatever CPU(s) it's running on, regardless of what the
emulated system is doing. That makes it difficult to run Charon
concurrently with other simulators unless you can afford to dedicate
separate CPUs to each one.
Bob
--
... and significantly bumps up your electricity bill to boot.
How does it perform on something like an Atom processor? I've been thinking about building a system with an Atom 330 CPU for SIMH, KLH10 and E11.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 06:24 -0800, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Anyway it seems that whenever I run Personal Alpha any Simh machines I
have running completely pause until I shutdown the Alpha simulator has
anyone else had this problem ?
Isn't Personal Alpha a version of the Charon-AXP emulator? I've never
used Personal Alpha, but I am using the free version of Charon-AXP and I can
tell you that, unlike simh, it has no OpenVMS idle detection. Charon will
always use 100% of whatever CPU(s) it's running on, regardless of what the
emulated system is doing. That makes it difficult to run Charon
concurrently with other simulators unless you can afford to dedicate
separate CPUs to each one.
Bob
--
... and significantly bumps up your electricity bill to boot.
Anyway it seems that whenever I run Personal Alpha any Simh machines I
have running completely pause until I shutdown the Alpha simulator has
anyone else had this problem ?
Isn't Personal Alpha a version of the Charon-AXP emulator? I've never
used Personal Alpha, but I am using the free version of Charon-AXP and I can
tell you that, unlike simh, it has no OpenVMS idle detection. Charon will
always use 100% of whatever CPU(s) it's running on, regardless of what the
emulated system is doing. That makes it difficult to run Charon
concurrently with other simulators unless you can afford to dedicate
separate CPUs to each one.
Bob
Anyway it seems that whenever I run Personal Alpha any Simh machines I
have running completely pause until I shutdown the Alpha simulator has
anyone else had this problem ?
Dan
Wow that sounds... odd. Check your CPU affinity, for the exe's.... It almost sounds like something deadlocking on the libpcap.........?
I'm just guessing, I'll have to fire up personal alpha & simh to take a looksee.
2010/1/4 Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com>:
I just started Multinet, so the link is back up.
Now we have PDXVAX and MISER up, but we're still missing PETEY and ZARQON
(and of course the poor GORVAX, but that's expected).
Bob
Hi everyone,
Hopefully a few people will read this. But it's not very exciting, My
machine is back up again. I had tried it a few times but the multinet
link was down.
I forgot to mention that Petey is dead PSU has gone, I am using a simh
machine to replace it at the moment. It is called slimer.
The main reason it's down is because I have been using another machine
with Personal Alpha to try and netboot a Dell Itanium machine. I have
not had much success so far, but I am still trying.
Anyway it seems that whenever I run Personal Alpha any Simh machines I
have running completely pause until I shutdown the Alpha simulator has
anyone else had this problem ?
Dan
I just started Multinet, so the link is back up.
Now we have PDXVAX and MISER up, but we're still missing PETEY and ZARQON
(and of course the poor GORVAX, but that's expected).
Bob
And GORVAX is off to the land of the borken for now, in Amsterdam myself so unable to dedicate too much time to fixing it.
Sampsa
On 4 Jan 2010, at 16:45, Zane H. Healy wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Bob Armstrong wrote:
... with a new DSL modem installed. Only the links to DUSTY and STUPI
came up - I don't know what happened to everybody else.
PDXVAX had crashed at some point in the past, and I hadn't bothered to bring
the link back up. I just started Multinet, so the link is back up.
Zane
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Bob Armstrong wrote:
... with a new DSL modem installed. Only the links to DUSTY and STUPI
came up - I don't know what happened to everybody else.
PDXVAX had crashed at some point in the past, and I hadn't bothered to bring
the link back up. I just started Multinet, so the link is back up.
Zane
