AEF wrote:
> And CI appears absent for Alpha.

DECnet performance over CI was never great, but DECnet was supported on
CI on VAX. The interface between VMS and the CI adapter changed
dramatically for Alpha, with the introduction of the NPORT architecture,
so that change may have been a factor. In any case, today, Fast Ethernet
or Gigabit Ethernet would be much better than CI for DECnet.

AEF wrote:
> [ON TOPIC!!!]
>
> VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't.
>
>>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual:
>
> "On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes
> acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level
> 2 routing or routing between multiple circuits."
>
> It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha.
>
> Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha.
>
> And CI appears absent for Alpha.
>
> Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people
> just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things
> missing from Phase IV for Alpha?
>
> Thanks!
>
> AEF
>

Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
never really achieved general acceptance!

There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in
the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes,
conquered the world!

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
> encountered DDCMP!


I used DDMCP twice. Once with a friend to test its functionality over
what was then new technology: MNP-5 modems (which were supposedly not
supported for DDMCP)

Second time was to establish a link between 2 vaxes before I received
the AUI-Coax transceivers to allow me to connect a partially installed
3100 with the all mighty microvax 2. (this allowed me to copy files over
to the 3100).

(For those who don't know, DDMCP is decnet over a serial line).

On Nov 6, 2:50 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
wrote:
> AEF wrote:
> > [ON TOPIC!!!]
>
> > VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't.
>
> >>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual:
>
> > "On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes
> > acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level
> > 2 routing or routing between multiple circuits."
>
> > It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha.
>
> > Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha.
>
> > And CI appears absent for Alpha.
>
> > Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people
> > just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things
> > missing from Phase IV for Alpha?
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > AEF
>
> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
> encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
> have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
> else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
> never really achieved general acceptance!
>
> There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in
> the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes,
> conquered the world!

[My apologies if this shows up twice -- Google Groups wasn't
responding and I "timed it out". This is my third(!) attempt to post
this.]

Hey, at least this is on topic!!! |:-D)

Anyway,

So what about the routing? Wouldn't it be easier for someone moving
from VAX to Alpha if at least the same level of routing functionality
were kept? Was it a big deal to to multiple circuits on an Alpha?

AEF

le 06.11.2007 21:20 JF Mezei a écrit:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
>> encountered DDCMP!
>
>
> I used DDMCP twice. Once with a friend to test its functionality over
> what was then new technology: MNP-5 modems (which were supposedly not
> supported for DDMCP)
>
> Second time was to establish a link between 2 vaxes before I received
> the AUI-Coax transceivers to allow me to connect a partially installed
> 3100 with the all mighty microvax 2. (this allowed me to copy files over
> to the 3100).
>
> (For those who don't know, DDMCP is decnet over a serial line).
Pfff... isn't it DDCMP ???

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:50:48 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert"
wrote:

>AEF wrote:
>> [ON TOPIC!!!]
>>
>> VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't.

DDCMP was legacy that wasn't needed anymore.

>>>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual:
>>
>> "On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes
>> acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level
>> 2 routing or routing between multiple circuits."
>>
>> It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha.
>>
>> Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha.
>>
>> And CI appears absent for Alpha.
>>
>> Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people
>> just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things
>> missing from Phase IV for Alpha?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> AEF
>>
>
>Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
>encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
>have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
>else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
>never really achieved general acceptance!

It was widely used between PDP-11s and VAXen in lab settings. The
DDCMP is good point to point but the media was range limited even with
SYNC modems which often only ran at 9600 baud. The latter is the big
issue as it was rare thing to see it used with a serial line faster
than 64kbaud. Even Ethernet 10mb beats that hands down but
then Ethernet was far more costly than a serial line.

>There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in
>the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes,
>conquered the world!

Back then networking was new and robust routing protocals were few.
Of those Banyan Vines, TCP/IP and DECnet were leaders. And also back
then it was common to see IP tunneled on DECnet!


Allison

"Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in
news:4730C598.2030902@comcast.net:

> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
> encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
> have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
> else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
> never really achieved general acceptance!

DDCMP == Digital Data Communications Message Protocol :-)

Actually there were various Motorola CPUs that implemented
parts of DDCMP (or maybe even all of it) but they may have been
general purpose masked parts produced at DEC's request.

Of your 20 years in the VAX/Alpha world, the Alpha part wouldn't
have helped: DDCMP never made it over there (and I can confidently
predict that it never will :-)).

Antonio

arcarlini@iee.org

no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:50:48 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert"
> wrote:
>
>> AEF wrote:
>>> [ON TOPIC!!!]
>>>
>>> VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't.
>>>
>> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
>> encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
>> have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
>> else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
>> never really achieved general acceptance!
>
> It was widely used between PDP-11s and VAXen in lab settings. The
> DDCMP is good point to point but the media was range limited even with
> SYNC modems which often only ran at 9600 baud. The latter is the big
> issue as it was rare thing to see it used with a serial line faster
> than 64kbaud. Even Ethernet 10mb beats that hands down but
> then Ethernet was far more costly than a serial line.

I have used DDCMP on dialup modems at 19.2Kb with several clients.

I even used it to connect from Texas to a client in London, UK. (I was
rather surprised at how well that worked.) At the time, overseas calls
were about $1/min, but it was still much less expensive than a plane ticket.

For clients with VAXen that are not connected to the internet, it is a
very handy capability.

If it existed on Alphas, it would be useful for accessing systems that
are not accessible from the internet.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.

Voice: 817-237-3360 Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com
Fax: 817-237-3074

AEF wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:50 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
> wrote:
>
>>AEF wrote:
>>
>>>[ON TOPIC!!!]
>>
>>>VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't.
>>
>>>>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual:
>>
>>>"On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes
>>>acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level
>>>2 routing or routing between multiple circuits."
>>
>>>It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha.
>>
>>>Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha.
>>
>>>And CI appears absent for Alpha.
>>
>>>Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people
>>>just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things
>>>missing from Phase IV for Alpha?
>>
>>>Thanks!
>>
>>>AEF
>>
>>Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
>>encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
>>have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
>>else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
>>never really achieved general acceptance!
>>
>>There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in
>>the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes,
>>conquered the world!
>
>
> [My apologies if this shows up twice -- Google Groups wasn't
> responding and I "timed it out". This is my third(!) attempt to post
> this.]
>
> Hey, at least this is on topic!!! |:-D)
>
> Anyway,
>
> So what about the routing? Wouldn't it be easier for someone moving
> from VAX to Alpha if at least the same level of routing functionality
> were kept? Was it a big deal to to multiple circuits on an Alpha?
>
> AEF
>
>

My Alphas spoke DECNet Phase 4 to each other and TCP/IP to the rest of
the world. A Cisco router handled the routing. In the days when I
still managed VAXen, they too spoke DECNet Phase 4 to each other and
TCP/IP to the rest of the world. I never had a VMS system that did any
routing whatever!

AEF wrote:
> [ON TOPIC!!!]
>
> VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't.
>
>>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual:
>
> "On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes
> acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level
> 2 routing or routing between multiple circuits."
>
> It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha.
>
> Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha.
>
> And CI appears absent for Alpha.
>
> Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people
> just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things
> missing from Phase IV for Alpha?
>
> Thanks!
>
> AEF
>
I think the reason has to do with DEC's push of the OSI protocol stack.
Routers were(are) stand alone boxes and Alphas were always considered
end systems.

Jeff

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

AEF writes:

>[ON TOPIC!!!]

>VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't.

At the time Alphas were new, certain DECserver boxes could do DDCMP
for the few places still using it.

>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual:

>"On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes
>acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level
>2 routing or routing between multiple circuits."

>It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha.

They had DECserver type boxes that did that as well.

I guess the logic was that type of overhead wasn't for main computers
but for peripheral type devices.

"Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message news:4730C598.2030902@comcast.net...
> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
> encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
> have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
> else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
> never really achieved general acceptance!

In the early eighties, before Ethernet was used, we used DDCMP to connect
several VAX and PDP 11 systems. Some of them were in the building,
others were in a different building a few kilometers further. In the latter
cases a modem was needed. Modems had a speed of 1200 baud at that time.

>Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version?

Don't think there were many customer left using DDCMP, so I guess it was

not considered useful and there was no need or request to port this to

the OpenVMS Alpha implementation of DECnet Phase IV.

The same goes goes for DECnet on the CI, as Keith explained.



To offload the OpenVMS-systems (and other host based DECnet-nodes),
dedicated

routers (like DECrouters on Microserver,DEMSA/B, DECnis and CISCO-routers)

were introduced and available, so host based routing functionality was not

strictly necessary anymore.



>Are peoplejust expected to use Phase V and if so,

>does it have all these things missing from Phase IV for Alpha?



Do you have a special need for DECnet-routing in your network ?



One option is to use a CISCO or other router, which implements the DECnet-

routing protocol. You will need to a special license/version, not just a

regular CISCO IP-router.



With the initial introduction of DECnet-OSI (now called DECnet-Plus, aka

DECnet Phase V) Host Based routing functionality was not implemented.

Some time later, this has become available in the DECnet-Plus implementation

on OpenVMS Alpha and Integrity.



DECdns client/clerk was implemented from the beginning on Alpha and

later on the DECdns server functionality has also been made available.

If all your DECnet-nodes are in the same LAN/Broadcast domain,

your DECnet (-Plus) end-nodes/systems can directly communicate

using the DECnet-protocol without the need for a router.



DECnet-PLus also implements DECnet-over-IP, which makes it possible to

transparantly use IP as the transport for your DECnet communication

between nodes/hosts in your network, thereby utilizing the IP-backbone

for routing.



Hope this helps.



Regards, /\Pim.

In article , "Pim van Velzen" writes:

> DECnet-PLus also implements DECnet-over-IP, which makes it possible to
> transparantly use IP as the transport for your DECnet communication
> between nodes/hosts in your network, thereby utilizing the IP-backbone
> for routing.

But Multinet provides Phase-IP, which allows one to transport DECnet
Phase IV over IP, so one does not have to give up the DECnet security
features that were omitted from DECnet Phase V (can you say SET EXECUTOR
DEFAULT ACCESS NONE, as in NIST 800-53 SC-7 (5) ?).

On Nov 7, 6:04 am, "Pim van Velzen" wrote:
> >Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version?
>
> Don't think there were many customer left using DDCMP, so I guess it was
>
> not considered useful and there was no need or request to port this to
>
> the OpenVMS Alpha implementation of DECnet Phase IV.
>
> The same goes goes for DECnet on the CI, as Keith explained.
>
> To offload the OpenVMS-systems (and other host based DECnet-nodes),
> dedicated
>
> routers (like DECrouters on Microserver,DEMSA/B, DECnis and CISCO-routers)
>
> were introduced and available, so host based routing functionality was not
>
> strictly necessary anymore.
>
> >Are peoplejust expected to use Phase V and if so,
> >does it have all these things missing from Phase IV for Alpha?
>
> Do you have a special need for DECnet-routing in your network ?

DNIP to get from NYC to London and HK.

Also, I was told that our app needs its "market" systems have to be
routers, though that might just be for DNIP tunnels. (Our app consists
of a central "market system" communicates with "update nodes". The
users front-end app connects to the update nodes.)

[BTW, your post showed up on Google Groups double spaced, as you can
tell reading this.]

> One option is to use a CISCO or other router, which implements the DECnet-
>
> routing protocol. You will need to a special license/version, not just a
>
> regular CISCO IP-router.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm not upgrading to Alpha (not that you
shouldn't have added that). I've just been reading through the DECnet
manuals and was just wondering why all the limitations on the Alphas.
Posts in this thread, including this one, have been very helpful.

> With the initial introduction of DECnet-OSI (now called DECnet-Plus, aka
>
> DECnet Phase V) Host Based routing functionality was not implemented.
>
> Some time later, this has become available in the DECnet-Plus implementation
>
> on OpenVMS Alpha and Integrity.
>
> DECdns client/clerk was implemented from the beginning on Alpha and
>
> later on the DECdns server functionality has also been made available.
>
> If all your DECnet-nodes are in the same LAN/Broadcast domain,
>
> your DECnet (-Plus) end-nodes/systems can directly communicate
>
> using the DECnet-protocol without the need for a router.
>
> DECnet-PLus also implements DECnet-over-IP, which makes it possible to
>
> transparantly use IP as the transport for your DECnet communication
>
> between nodes/hosts in your network, thereby utilizing the IP-backbone
>
> for routing.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Regards, /\Pim.

AEF

In article <4730C598.2030902@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
>
> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
> encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
> have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
> else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
> never really achieved general acceptance!

DDCMP was pretty much DECnet specific. You could, in principle,
design something else that ran over DDCMP, but I'm not sure you
could do TCP/IP or ISO/OSI.

>
> There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in
> the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes,
> conquered the world!

Some folks think Microsoft has conquered the world, but as long as us
heritics hold out there is some hope.

In article <2ab7d$4730cc89$cef8887a$3152@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
>
> (For those who don't know, DDMCP is decnet over a serial line).

DDCMP is a line level protocol over synchronous serial lines. You
could, in principle, put something other than DECnet on top of it.
It is not DECnet over asynchronous serial lines.

In article , no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net writes:
>
> It was widely used between PDP-11s and VAXen in lab settings. The
> DDCMP is good point to point but the media was range limited even with
> SYNC modems which often only ran at 9600 baud. The latter is the big
> issue as it was rare thing to see it used with a serial line faster
> than 64kbaud. Even Ethernet 10mb beats that hands down but
> then Ethernet was far more costly than a serial line.

Ethernet is a LAN protocol. DDCMP is a WAN protocol, although I saw
it used locally prior to the introduction of Ethernet. We used to
have local lines (in the building) using 9600 baud modems, shorter
lines (in one room) using coax cable, and long distance (East coast
to Mississippi river) lines on 56K modems.

Those short coax lines were faster than the modems, but I don't
recall the speed.

In article <0bM1Hbh$pKpA@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <4730C598.2030902@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
>>
>> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER
>> encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might
>> have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone
>> else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that
>> never really achieved general acceptance!
>
> DDCMP was pretty much DECnet specific. You could, in principle,
> design something else that ran over DDCMP, but I'm not sure you
> could do TCP/IP or ISO/OSI.
>
>>
>> There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in
>> the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes,
>> conquered the world!
>
> Some folks think Microsoft has conquered the world, but as long as us
> heritics hold out there is some hope.

Microsoft was able to conquer the world because their product ran
on stand alone systems that did not require co-operation with other
systems in order to grow. Networking doesn't work like that. Like
it or not, TCP/IP has taken over the networking world and there is
no attempt being made to build a parallel network that relies on a
different protocol set in order to supplant TCP/IP's postion.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include