On 09/26/2013 01:49 PM, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote:
I checked EISNER, and it's currently configured for area 11. I cannot =
see if there are any other DECnet nodes reachable from it (do not have =
privileges). It do indeed run Multinet.
=20
VAXman, is the DECNET on EISNER actually connected to anything?
Not likely. There was a time but EISNER moved from the home of its old
caretaker (Terry Kennedy) to its new location and it is now just stand-
alone.
SO close...I have most everything else DEC-related of Terry's.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> writes:
I checked EISNER, and it's currently configured for area 11. I cannot =
see if there are any other DECnet nodes reachable from it (do not have =
privileges). It do indeed run Multinet.
=20
VAXman, is the DECNET on EISNER actually connected to anything?
Not likely. There was a time but EISNER moved from the home of its old
caretaker (Terry Kennedy) to its new location and it is now just stand-
alone.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
I checked EISNER, and it's currently configured for area 11. I cannot see if there are any other DECnet nodes reachable from it (do not have privileges). It do indeed run Multinet.
VAXman, is the DECNET on EISNER actually connected to anything?
sampsa
On 2013-09-26 18:46, Sampsa Laine wrote:
I'll pass this info/request along to Dale Coy and then he can get the others
into the loop if he thinks it's a good idea.
Cool, thanks. I hope they're open to the idea, I don't see any major obstacles myself (they've already got DECNET installed, MULTINET will make a simple connection, and they're open to the public via IP anyway).
Just remember to mention that there are a lot of other systems than VMS on HECnet which could be interesting for their userbase.
I checked EISNER, and it's currently configured for area 11. I cannot see if there are any other DECnet nodes reachable from it (do not have privileges). It do indeed run Multinet.
Johnny
I'll pass this info/request along to Dale Coy and then he can get the others
into the loop if he thinks it's a good idea.
Cool, thanks. I hope they're open to the idea, I don't see any major obstacles myself (they've already got DECNET installed, MULTINET will make a simple connection, and they're open to the public via IP anyway).
Just remember to mention that there are a lot of other systems than VMS on HECnet which could be interesting for their userbase.
Sampsa
Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> writes:
=20
I would think that, as a bunch of DECheads, many in the EISNER crowd
would very much enjoy exposure to some other DEC OSs that they likely
haven't seen in decades.
Could be another "selling point" to convince them to join, if our side =
is happy with inviting them.
I just think HECnet is very cool, has some great systems on it and feel =
we should share it with fellow DEC enthusiasts. EISNER is full of them.
VAXman, did you mention you had admin privs over there? Interested in =
running this idea by the other admins? Since nobody seems to mind on our =
side, I think we should send out an invite.
I'll pass this info/request along to Dale Coy and then he can get the others
into the loop if he thinks it's a good idea.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
I would think that, as a bunch of DECheads, many in the EISNER crowd
would very much enjoy exposure to some other DEC OSs that they likely
haven't seen in decades.
Could be another "selling point" to convince them to join, if our side is happy with inviting them.
I just think HECnet is very cool, has some great systems on it and feel we should share it with fellow DEC enthusiasts. EISNER is full of them.
VAXman, did you mention you had admin privs over there? Interested in running this idea by the other admins? Since nobody seems to mind on our side, I think we should send out an invite.
sampsa
PS: I think they run MULTINET so they wouldn't even need a bridge machine, just a UDP tunnel to someone else with MULTINET.
PPS: This is maybe 1/100th of the effort of merging with the Italian DECNET and probably would get us roughly the same amount of activity. It'd be silly not to at least suggest it :)
On 2013-09-26 17:49, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Sep 26, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-09-26 14:16, Sampsa Laine wrote:
While I did have an account on Deathrow, I was not all that familiar with
the users thereof.
The encourage security research, it attracts a certain type of person that I don't want on my LAN (trust me, I used to be a penetration tester :) )
The problem is that if you want to be paranoid, then you should not be connected to HECnet at all.
DECnet is a very bad protocol when it comes to network security.
In what way? Just like most of the Internet, it sends cleartext. Of course in HECnet we can easily use IPSec (well, for some suitable definition of "easily" because crypto usually requires some effort to configure). But apart from that, the security assumptions in DECnet are basically the same as those in TCP/IP. If anything, they might be slightly stronger: there is a semi-standard way of handling access control in the Session layer rather than having it done differently (if at all) by each application. There is event logging that can be used to capture some security-relevant events.
Already commented some further on this. And you are right.
Johnny
On Sep 26, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-09-26 14:16, Sampsa Laine wrote:
While I did have an account on Deathrow, I was not all that familiar with
the users thereof.
The encourage security research, it attracts a certain type of person that I don't want on my LAN (trust me, I used to be a penetration tester :) )
The problem is that if you want to be paranoid, then you should not be connected to HECnet at all.
DECnet is a very bad protocol when it comes to network security.
In what way? Just like most of the Internet, it sends cleartext. Of course in HECnet we can easily use IPSec (well, for some suitable definition of "easily" because crypto usually requires some effort to configure). But apart from that, the security assumptions in DECnet are basically the same as those in TCP/IP. If anything, they might be slightly stronger: there is a semi-standard way of handling access control in the Session layer rather than having it done differently (if at all) by each application. There is event logging that can be used to capture some security-relevant events.
paul
On 09/26/2013 09:46 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Like I said before. I certainly don't mind if EISNER were to be
connected to HECnet, but I really can't say that it would actually
benefit HECnet (or EISNER) much in the general sense. Most people on
EISNER would probably not care at all about the fact that there was
DECnet connectivity to a bunch of other machines which they know nothing
about, and would do even less with.
And most of the time, the people on HECnet wouldn't really be all over
EISNER either.
I would think that, as a bunch of DECheads, many in the EISNER crowd
would very much enjoy exposure to some other DEC OSs that they likely
haven't seen in decades.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
