On 2013-02-17 02:05, Clem Cole wrote: BTW: the bits have definitely rotted in my brain here, but I thought the BBN "portable" stack was targeted to RSX years ago, I know it ran on one of the HP systems (do not remember if it was the 3000 or the 1000). I honestly don't know for sure, but this is the first I've ever heard of that. Doing a "portable" stack for RSX would probably be very hard, by the way. There are definitely some quirks in RSX to take into consideration making it less easy to do something generic. In addition, unless you want really bad performance, you want to be close to the kernel, which severely restricts your memory size, making anything written in a high level language very hard. Not to mention that there are no "official" support for writing any code that interfaces to the kernel in any high level language. Not that I even could think of what language that portable stack would have been written in. C was not on the table for RSX for a long time. FORTRAN is hardly suitable, and DEC used BLISS internally, but that was not really available to the outside. But I really thought one of the targets DARPA had for the stack was RSX-11. It would be interesting to find out more. I do remember VMS was not a target, and thus we wrote the original implementation at Tektronix in 1979, which we gave to CMU via my connections and would become the basis for the VMS versions. Is that the Multinet IP for VMS? Never looked at it, but it's been around for a long time. (And several people here are running it.) Johnny On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com <mailto:clemc at ccc.com>> wrote: right. the Linux implementation is not the BBN/BSD scheme, but I agree / I'd be shocked if the Linux folks had not looked at NET2/FreeBSD/NetBSD code (and it's too bad the Linux folks never looked at the BBN releases post Joy's messing with the BBN version). Note that BBN was not partly at fault for that. Very few people ever got to see the later versions I fear. The excuse was always CMU/MIT/BSD license vs. GNU GPL - but I personally think was an excuse to say they needed to do it over. Sigh... Clem On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote: On 2013-02-17 01:28, Clem Cole wrote: Linux ip/tcp stack is not the bbn/bsd derived code. it was independently developed so the fact that they are differences is not surprising. one of my own personal gripes about Linux is the desire/need to redo things from scratch (ext fs comes to find here also). I seem to remember that they have in fact had several implementations, as their first attempts really sucked (Linux people take some pride in the many iterations they do of implementations, it would seem). I would not be surprised to learn that after a few failed attempts, they "borrows" parts of the BSD code for their TCP/IP, but I have not looked properly at it in quite a number of years. Johnny On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com <mailto:gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com>> wrote: On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote: On 2013-02-16 01:13, Johnny Billquist wrote: Hi. As I'm working on my TCP/IP for RSX, I just noticed something that I think looks funny in Linux. But right now my head is also spinning, so maybe there is something I've just forgotten, or don't know, which explains this. But if anyone can shed some light, I'd be interested. Just for the record - I *think* that TCP/IP in Linux is misbehaving, but it's not really hurting anything, but I like my TCP/IP to really do things as right and optimal as possible. [...] Any thoughts, opinions or knowledge always welcome. Not that I've come any closer to figuring it all out, however I thought I should mention that I've checked some more against both NetBSD and OS/X and neither show the behavior I observe in Linux, so I think I'm just going to attribute this to a crappy implementation on the Linux side. That's not the first time Linux code turns out to be bad, so I'm not totally surprised... (And yes, I also tried VMS actually... :-) ) 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 Hello! Johnny I've been arguing with the stack for Linux for about as many years as I've known about the idea of emulating our friends, the PDP-11 crowd and those Vaxes. And sadly it happens to be something of a kludge. Alan Cox and the others behind it are constantly sorting it out. Fact is, three-quarters of it, happens to be from the land of BSD and fitted into it rather awkwardly. So your discoveries must be a surprise to a lot of us, but it confirms what I've known all along. Incidentally Dave this isn't your fault. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com <mailto:gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com> "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." -- 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 -- 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