Hmm. Such a setup will at best be weird.
The level-1 router in the middle, how would it know which way to go when a packet to an area that exist on both sides?
So it would basically only be "useful" when both sides only wanted to talk to the node/area in the middle, and only from nodes for which there were no conflicts.
Or atleast that is my guess, since I haven't actually tried it.
Johnny
Ian McLaughlin wrote:
Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote:
What Johnny said... :-)
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets
So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-)
Johnny
gerry77 at mail.com <mailto:gerry77 at mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote:
My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST
(InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc
support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending.
I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing
list
I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member
of
HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P
We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we
departed
from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth
issues
that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as
required
by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the
2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not
happy
with that solution because many of us had (and some still have)
dynamic IP
addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address
change!
At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the
bridge,
either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still
unpublished, so
we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours.
About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt
about
the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood
that we
were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty
packet
loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to
modify his
work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30
nodes, all
in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a
full
mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge
(but
we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks).
If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details,
such as
some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-)
Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP
together,
and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the
.conf
section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider
transporting
SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive
protocol and
would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded,
Steve,
in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet?
Cheers,
G.
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8…
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Ian,
Are you talking about hidden area support? That is one of the reasons that I modified the bridge. Area 63 in HECnet is hidden (sort of...). At the moment it only exists at my end but... It turns out it is a bit more complicated than I had ever imagined. I did find some notes about how it was done in ZKO (Spitbrook Rd, Nashua, NH) but I'm a long way from making it actually happen. One component involves two different copies of the databases - but that is only the beginning.
-Steve
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Ian McLaughlin
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 18:43
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets
Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote:
What Johnny said... :-)
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets
So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-)
Johnny
gerry77 at mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote:
My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST
(InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc
support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending.
I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing
list
I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member
of
HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P
We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we
departed
from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth
issues
that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as
required
by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the
2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not
happy
with that solution because many of us had (and some still have)
dynamic IP
addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address
change!
At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the
bridge,
either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still
unpublished, so
we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours.
About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt
about
the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood
that we
were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty
packet
loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to
modify his
work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30
nodes, all
in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a
full
mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge
(but
we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks).
If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details,
such as
some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-)
Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP
together,
and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the
.conf
section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider
transporting
SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive
protocol and
would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded,
Steve,
in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet?
Cheers,
G.
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8…
Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote:
What Johnny said... :-)
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets
So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-)
Johnny
gerry77 at mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote:
My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST
(InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc
support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending.
I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing
list
I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member
of
HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P
We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we
departed
from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth
issues
that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as
required
by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the
2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not
happy
with that solution because many of us had (and some still have)
dynamic IP
addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address
change!
At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the
bridge,
either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still
unpublished, so
we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours.
About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt
about
the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood
that we
were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty
packet
loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to
modify his
work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30
nodes, all
in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a
full
mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge
(but
we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks).
If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details,
such as
some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-)
Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP
together,
and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the
.conf
section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider
transporting
SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive
protocol and
would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded,
Steve,
in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet?
Cheers,
G.
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8…
What Johnny said... :-)
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets
So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-)
Johnny
gerry77 at mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote:
My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST
(InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc
support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending.
I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing
list
I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member
of
HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P
We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we
departed
from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth
issues
that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as
required
by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the
2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not
happy
with that solution because many of us had (and some still have)
dynamic IP
addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address
change!
At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the
bridge,
either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still
unpublished, so
we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours.
About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt
about
the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood
that we
were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty
packet
loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to
modify his
work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30
nodes, all
in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a
full
mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge
(but
we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks).
If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details,
such as
some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-)
Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP
together,
and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the
.conf
section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider
transporting
SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive
protocol and
would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded,
Steve,
in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet?
Cheers,
G.
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Testing has been delayed for the LAVc configuration until this weekend -
work has a habit of getting in the way of hobbies.
In my version, I continue to use the same bridge.conf file except that I
have added the following:
[mop]
[sca]
[last]
I did not want to force MOP or LAT on a site that only needed one of
them so I split them out. This version has only one file with the
appropriate sites/areas included or commented out to keep things
cleaner/easier. Current testing is with two other sites. One is in the
US via the Internet, the other is here (multiple static IP addresses are
a wonderful thing).
I would be interested to see what may be the differences in my version
and the one you are using.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of gerry77 at mail.com
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 16:38
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: [HECnet] Others DECnets (was: Boot VAX from Alpha host
Infoserver?)
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote:
My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST
(InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc
support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending.
I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing
list
I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of
HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P
We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we
departed
from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues
that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as
required
by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the
2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not
happy
with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic
IP
addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change!
At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge,
either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished,
so
we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours.
About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt
about
the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood
that we
were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty
packet
loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify
his
work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes,
all
in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full
mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge
(but
we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks).
If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details,
such as
some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-)
Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP
together,
and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf
section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider
transporting
SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol
and
would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded,
Steve,
in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet?
Cheers,
G.
So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-)
Johnny
gerry77 at mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote:
My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST
(InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc
support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending.
I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list
I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of
HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P
We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed
from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues
that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required
by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the
2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy
with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP
addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change!
At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge,
either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so
we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours.
About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about
the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we
were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet
loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his
work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all
in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full
mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but
we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks).
If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as
some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-)
Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together,
and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf
section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting
SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and
would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve,
in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet?
Cheers,
G.
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
RSX have taken another step that I don't know if you are aware of, Paul.
Yes, NCP is for the volatile database only. RSX then also have CFE,
which works pretty much the same way as NCP, but for the permanent
database. And as a third tool, there is VNP, which is odd in this sense,
since it affects parts of the DECnet operations, but on the image that
is booted (that is, you can perform a bunch of NCP commands on the
volatile database, but it's kind of "permanent" since it's done on a
file image that is booted, so in effect you are doing the NCP commands
before the system even boots).
However, RSX also moved the nodename database totally out of the main
DECned code, and have in fact a separate task that actually handles
nodename to number translations, called NNS.
So, both SCP and NCP as well as all tasks indirectly talks with NNS
whenever a nodename is given.
NCP under RSX (and CFE and VNP) furthermore don't have a COPY command.
But in connection with NNS is also a task called NNC, which can be used
to pull node names from another node into the nodename database used by
NNS. So that do the same thing as COPY in VMS (and some more stuff).
I suspect that one reason NCP and CFE was two different tasks in RSX was
probably for resource reasons. It was probably difficult to combine them
into one program for small RSX systems.
Johnny
Paul Koning wrote:
Ditto for the other DECnets. "COPY KNOWN NODES" is a VMS-specific
extension.
RSX is a particularly odd case, with its separate utility for handling
volatile vs. non-volatile stuff. That's not what the architecture
called for. DECnet/VMS and DECnet/E are much closer to standard. Not
that the network management spec was ever a complete standard; it was
inevitable that every OS would need OS-specific extensions, the question
was only how closely the final result would resemble what the spec talks
about.
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:03 PM
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet area router configuration
Well, the procedure in RSX is totally different anyway, so that's no
help. RSX have a totally separate task to handle node name stuff.
And NCP is only used for the volatile database.
Johnny
Steve Davidson wrote:
You need to use the "with purge" option for this to happen - at
least
in
VMS anyway.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE]
On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 15:21
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet area router configuration
Actually, I'm not entirely sure (I don't use VMS much nowadays), but
I
think it might remove all previous definitions before doing the
copy.
But that is easy to test. Just add a definition for some odd node
that
don't exist, and then do a copy.
Johnny
Ian McLaughlin wrote:
Does a COPY KNOWN NODES FROM xxx remove nodes in your local
database
that aren't listed any more?
It's fairly easy to run a COPY KNOWN NODES command once in a while.
I
guess the only piece missing is an automated way for MIM to get
updates
from everyone else.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 12:10 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a
distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an
area
could update the name database for his network and have it
automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have
right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort -
just
automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my
suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid
to
have
different names for the same node number on different machines
(although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS?
Not
necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines?
The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place
at
each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source
code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be
possible.
Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> ||
Reading
murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B.
Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or
not-spam
here:
http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-
bin/learn.pl?messageid=E4AFF6EEE04711
DE98D9899E93ED0201
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote:
My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST
(InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc
support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending.
I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list
I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of
HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P
We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed
from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues
that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required
by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the
2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy
with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP
addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change!
At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge,
either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so
we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours.
About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about
the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we
were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet
loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his
work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all
in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full
mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but
we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks).
If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as
some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-)
Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together,
and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf
section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting
SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and
would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve,
in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet?
Cheers,
G.
Ditto for the other DECnets. "COPY KNOWN NODES" is a VMS-specific
extension.
RSX is a particularly odd case, with its separate utility for handling
volatile vs. non-volatile stuff. That's not what the architecture
called for. DECnet/VMS and DECnet/E are much closer to standard. Not
that the network management spec was ever a complete standard; it was
inevitable that every OS would need OS-specific extensions, the question
was only how closely the final result would resemble what the spec talks
about.
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:03 PM
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet area router configuration
Well, the procedure in RSX is totally different anyway, so that's no
help. RSX have a totally separate task to handle node name stuff.
And NCP is only used for the volatile database.
Johnny
Steve Davidson wrote:
You need to use the "with purge" option for this to happen - at
least
in
VMS anyway.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE]
On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 15:21
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet area router configuration
Actually, I'm not entirely sure (I don't use VMS much nowadays), but
I
think it might remove all previous definitions before doing the
copy.
But that is easy to test. Just add a definition for some odd node
that
don't exist, and then do a copy.
Johnny
Ian McLaughlin wrote:
Does a COPY KNOWN NODES FROM xxx remove nodes in your local
database
that aren't listed any more?
It's fairly easy to run a COPY KNOWN NODES command once in a while.
I
guess the only piece missing is an automated way for MIM to get
updates
from everyone else.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 12:10 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a
distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an
area
could update the name database for his network and have it
automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have
right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort -
just
automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my
suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid
to
have
different names for the same node number on different machines
(although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS?
Not
necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines?
The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place
at
each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source
code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be
possible.
Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> ||
Reading
murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B.
Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or
not-spam
here:
http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-
bin/learn.pl?messageid=E4AFF6EEE04711
DE98D9899E93ED0201
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Well, the procedure in RSX is totally different anyway, so that's no
help. RSX have a totally separate task to handle node name stuff.
And NCP is only used for the volatile database.
Johnny
Steve Davidson wrote:
You need to use the "with purge" option for this to happen - at least in
VMS anyway.
-Steve -----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 15:21
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet area router configuration
Actually, I'm not entirely sure (I don't use VMS much nowadays), but I think it might remove all previous definitions before doing the copy.
But that is easy to test. Just add a definition for some odd node that don't exist, and then do a copy.
Johnny
Ian McLaughlin wrote:
Does a COPY KNOWN NODES FROM xxx remove nodes in your local database that aren't listed any more?
It's fairly easy to run a COPY KNOWN NODES command once in a while. I
guess the only piece missing is an automated way for MIM to get
updates
from everyone else.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 12:10 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an area could update the name database for his network and have it automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort - just automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to
have
different names for the same node number on different machines (although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines? The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place at
each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source
code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be possible.
Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> ||
Reading
murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here:
http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=E4AFF6EEE04711
DE98D9899E93ED0201
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
