4 Mar
2020
4 Mar
'20
5:38 a.m.
I took Bob's note as an invitation to perform a little experiment on
ZITI::.? It looks like my suspicions were confirmed; if the node name
isn't in Tops-20's hash table, then you are not going there, no way, no how.
* I verified that ZITI:: was in my area, online and that I could do a
SHOW EXECUTOR,
* I then undefined poor ZITI::, noticing that it subsequently was
reported as offline (clearly a vicious calumny).
* The NICE process (NCP) could no longer communicate with it either by
name /or by number/.
* When I redefined ZITI:: with SETNOD, SHOW EXECUTOR started working
again.
I wonder why they never allowed real area.number connections in
Tops-20?? I mean other than they were running away from the product...?
Hum...
!i dec
?Local DECNET node: VENTI2.? Nodes reachable: 6.
?Accessible DECNET nodes are:??? A2RTR??? APOLLO LEGATO??? TOMMYT???
VENTI2??? ZITI
!opr
OPR>enter ncp
NCP>telL ziti:: shoW exeCUTOR
NCP>
23:20:29 ??? NCP
??? ??? Request # 5 Accepted
NCP>
23:20:30 ??? NCP
Request # 5; Show Executor Node Summary Completed
Executor Node = 2.16 (ZITI)
? Circuit = eth1
? State = On
? Identification = DECnet for Linux V4.4.0-148-generic on x86_64
NCP>push
?PANDA TOPS-20 Command processor 7.1(4454)-5
?End of TOMMYT:<SLOGIN>COMAND.CMD.12
@enable
!setnod
SETNOD>set nODE -1 . -1 nAME ZITI
SETNOD>insert
SETNOD>exi
!i dec
?Local DECNET node: VENTI2.? Nodes reachable: 5.
?Accessible DECNET nodes are:??? A2RTR??? APOLLO LEGATO??? TOMMYT??? VENTI2
!pop
NCP>telL ziti:: shoW exeCUTOR
NCP>
23:22:13 ??? NCP
??? ??? Request # 6 Accepted
23:22:13 ??? NCP
Request # 6; Show Executor Node Summary Failed, Listener link connect
failed,
Link Failure = Node unreachable
NCP>telL 2.16 shoW exECUTOR
NCP>
23:22:23 ??? NCP
??? ??? Request # 7 Accepted
23:22:23 ??? NCP
Request # 7; Show Executor Node Summary Failed, Invalid identification,
Node address has no matching node name
NCP>
23:22:28 ??? ? -- DECnet link message --
Communication failure to the following nodes:
ZITI
NCP>push
!c setnod
SETNOD>set nod 2.16 name ziti
SETNOD>insert
SETNOD>exi
!i dec
?Local DECNET node: VENTI2.? Nodes reachable: 6.
?Accessible DECNET nodes are:??? A2RTR??? APOLLO LEGATO??? TOMMYT???
VENTI2??? ZITI
!pop
NCP>tel ziti:: shoW exeCUTOR
NCP>
23:23:35 ??? NCP
??? ??? Request # 8 Accepted
NCP>
23:23:36 ??? NCP
Request # 8; Show Executor Node Summary Completed
Executor Node = 2.16 (ZITI)
? Circuit = eth1
? State = On
? Identification = DECnet for Linux V4.4.0-148-generic on x86_64
NCP>exit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 3/3/20 10:38 PM, Robert Armstrong wrote:
The area.node
notation, and the Phase 3 numeric address notation, were
intended to be standard, not just limited to NCP. And indeed DECnet/E
(in RSTS) does both:
FWIW, VMS accepts all three notations too - e.g. ZITI::,
2.16:: and
2064::. It also accepts the node"name password":: notation as well.
Actually I thought this was a standard thing in all "modern" (i.e. Phase IV)
implementations. Are there systems that don't?
And the VMS parser doesn't limit the node name to 6 characters, so you can
say "63.1023::" (although HECnet has no such node).
Bob