 Re: strange tcpip issue
On Aug 24, 3:46*pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
wrote:
> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <8iWrk.47097$E41.38...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, "Tim
> > Wilkinson" writes:
>
> >>True, normally I would have assigned a static address to devices I class as
> >>"Servers", but as my "VAX" is a simh on my laptop which moves round with me,
> >>it was convienient to use DHCP. I have not tried it, but would guess even
> >>static assigned would not cope with the subnet mask my network people have
> >>supplied for my home network.
>
> > Why? *I used to have an ISDN connection with my own subnet (8
> > addresses, one for the router, one for the subnet, one broadcast, so 5
> > for machines). *Why couldn't you use one of the addresses on the subnet
> > your network people have provided? *Of course, static doesn't mean so
> > static that you can't change it depending on your network. *:-)
>
> >>I find it surprising that DEC never "Got it" as they were at the forefront
> >>of embracing networking. But for some reason seemed very reluctant to pick
> >>up on TCP/IP. I remember running Wollongong to allow terminal server
> >>attached users to connect to some of my microvaxes in the 80/90s. Otherkit
> >>had unibus hardware boards from Bridge (Later part of 3com) to allow TCP/IP
> >>connected terminal servers to communicate. Even in that era, we were using
> >>VLSM to allocate our allocated "Class B" network across the UK sites.
>
> > DEC manufactured DECnet, which was superior. *Why should they have
> > pushed something inferior? *Non-DEC stuff could speak DECnet as well,so
> > it wasn't clear that TCPIP would win in the end.
>
> DECNet Phase IV or Phase V? *It was clear almost from day one that
> DECNet V would not fly! *TCP/IP had already conquered the world! *NCL
> and its documentation were enough of a PITA that I installed phase IV
> rather than V on all of my machines. *I'm still running Phase IV
> whenever two or more of my home DEC systems are powered up.
>
> DEC networking never seemed to realize that most people were NOT running
> * all the weird point-to-point protocols that they supported. *Phase IV
> on the LAN, for the WAN/Internet TCP/IP all the way!
I was working for a government contractor (under DOE) back in
1986-1990 when the very preliminary OSI stuff was being bandied about
as the wave of the future. It was supposed to be mandatory for
government contracts. That in itself was enough to drive a great deal
of effort in implementing and 'selling' it. I went to at least three
seminars by DEC about the transition.
It was the government weaseling out of the POSIX and OSI mandates that
pulled the rug out from under DEC and the other folks that had
bothered to implement it.
 |