HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

15589 discussions

by ian＠platinum.net

On 2009-12-03, at 3:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Hmm. Such a setup will at best be weird. And building a hobbyist network using obsolete computers and obsolete protocols isn't weird? :) Ian.

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by ian＠platinum.net

Here's where I read about hidden areas: http://labs.hoffmanlabs.com/node/271 Basically, if you have a network like this: ME => ROUTER => YOU Where ME:: and YOU:: are in conflicting areas, and ROUTER:: is a level 1 router between two level 2 routers, you would get from me to you using: ROUTER::YOU:: I haven't tried it, but it might be worth an experiment. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: 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 --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=A6EBD192E06611DEA…

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by bqt＠softjar.se

I think it makes sense to split out the different protocols in more detail. I wouldn't mind allowing MOP to all places, however, LAT is something I prefer to be a little more cautious with (just as an example). Johnny Steve Davidson wrote: 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. -- 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

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by jeep＠scshome.net

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…

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by ian＠platinum.net

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…

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by jeep＠scshome.net

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

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets (was: Boot VAX from Alpha host Infoserver?)

by jeep＠scshome.net

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.

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

16 years, 2 months

DECnet area router configuration

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

16 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet