I have a small request:
On nodes that run Multinet tunnels AND talks to Johnnys bridge with a
ethernet interface put the cost of 5 on the Multinet link and cost
20 on their Ethernet facing the bridge?
What hopfullt hapens is that traffic becomes symetric inside each domain..
-P
Hey folks. All traffic on all of my DECnet tunnels seems to have
dropped dead around 3PM yesterday. I've been dicking around with my
router's configuration all week, but in an unrelated area (IP NAT
configuration) so I'm pretty sure I didn't break it. Any thoughts as to
what might be going on?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Hey Johnny, have you thought about adding lpr/lpd support to your IP
stack? In particular I'd love to have the ability to print from an RSX
system to a networked printer.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
I know this seems a bit...odd but uh...does anyone know if dynamips +
dynagen will build and run on mips?
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
Well, about two months since my last announcement, and some improvements
have been done, so I figured I should do another one.
I've cut a new release of TCP/IP for RSX, and I encourage everyone to
update to this latest release.
A short list of changes since my last release:
TCP:
. Performance improvements. TCP timers have been redesigned for better
performance. This gave FTP a performance increase of about 15$.
. TCP negative ACK detection has been improved.
, TCP receive packet handling have been redesigned for better
performance, and better code structure.
. Added guards against data received after FIN.
. Bugfix in SPOOF hostname printouts when filter was cleared.
. Bugfix in tcp timers that could cause a close to take a very
long time to clean up.
FTP:
. Bugfix in user verification code which could cause program
to crash. This affected ftpd.
. Changed ftp and ftpd to create files without max record length when
dealing with binary files.
TELNET:
. Added exit handler to telnetd, so that telnetd cannot be aborted
while active sessions exist.
HTTPD:
. Improved webserver handling of binary files.
As usual, the distribution is available from:
ftp://mim.update.uu.se/bqtcp.dsk
ftp://mim.update.uu.se/bqtcp.tap
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/pdp11/rsx/tcpip/tcpip.dsk
The documentation is also available through ftp on Mim, or also at
http://mim.update.uu.se/tcpipdoc
Note! I've realized that BQTCP/IP do not work right if you have a
PDP-11/74 with multiple processors online. I'll fix that at some point,
as it's probably just a case of affinity not being set on devices, nor
relevant processes. This might only be a problem with telnet in fact. I
know for sure that the IP and TCP drivers works ok in multiprocessor
systems.
Johnny
--
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
Guys,
I've got an Integrity (rx2660) box but the install ISO file I have seems to be corrupt - does anyone happen to have a working ISO I could build the box from (I have the hobbyist licenses)?
Sampsa
I think this topic was up once before, but I can't find it right now, so
I figured I'd ask.
Do anyone have some idea/documentation on how the Multinet capsulates
DECnet traffic over IP. I seem to remember it pretended it was like
ethernet, but I'd like to have all the details.
The reason is that since my TCP/IP for RSX is now at a stage where the
basic functionality is pretty stable and good, I might try something
new. Implementing a line that uses IP for transport would be useful, and
it would also be useful if it was compatible with the Multinet
implementation. I wouldn't mind also doing something compatible with
Cisco. Anyone have the details of that one?
I could also do a very RSX specific implementation, but that would be
less useful, I think.
Anyone else feel like hacking on TCP/IP on PDP-11s? I have lots of
things that could be nice to have under RSX... ;-)
Johnny
Here's the previous message.
paul
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Paul Koning <paul_koning at dell.com>
> Subject: Multinet over TCP -- protocol and observations
> Date: May 30, 2014 at 1:55:37 PM EDT
> To: "<hecnet at Update.UU.SE>" <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
>
> With help from Bob Armstrong and Peter Lothberg, I have a reverse engineered Python implementation of the Multinet tunnel over TCP working now.
>
> Peter forwarded an old HECnet message that roughly describes the protocol, but some details were missing and some were not quite accurate. For the benefit of anyone else who wants to implement this, here is the protocol description plus some implementation notes.
>
> paul
>
> ?????????????
>
> Multinet protocol for DECnet
>
> A Multinet tunnel runs the Point to Point mode of the DECnet protocol. Traffic may be carried over a TCP connection, or over UDP packets. The operation is nearly the same for both.
>
> In TCP mode, one end is designated the connecting end and the other the listening end. In UDP mode, operation is symmetric since there are no connections. In either case, the port number may be configured; the default is 700.
>
> Multinet puts a 4 byte header on each DECnet packet. For TCP, the first two bytes are the DECnet packet length, little endian. The TCP data stream consists of these packets with headers.
>
> For UDP, the first two byte are a sequence number, little endian. The next two bytes appear to be unused and were observed to contain zero. Each DECnet packet, with its header, is sent as a separate UDP packet. Some Multinet implementations can be configured to check the sequence number in UDP mode; it is not clear how this works (in particular, how it is initialized). Linux does not, and things seem to work fine without this extra check.
>
> Multinet tunneling does not obey many of the requirements that the DECnet Routing architecture imposes on point to point datalinks. The most obvious issue is that routing layer point to point init messages (control packet, type code 0) may appear unexpectedly. This happens even in TCP mode where it might be expected that the TCP connection would be closed and re-established before the init message.
>
> A conforming DECnet implementation reacts to such an unexpected init message by restarting the circuit, sending an init message, and expecting one in return. Multinet does not expect this, and if the peer operates according to the standard, initialization may require many cycles before it finally succeeds. As a workaround, the response to an unexpected init should be to set the routing initialization sublayer state machine to the DS state (without restarting the TCP connection, if any), and processing the unexpected init message as if it had been received in that state.
>
> In testing with a DECnet/VMS system, it was observed to send an Init message requesting verification even though verification was not called for in the circuit parameters. It may be that this was due to the routing architecture requirement to use verification in areas other than area 1. A null verification message (empty FCNVAL field) was accepted by the VMS system in that test.
>
