strange tcpip issue - VMS

This is a discussion on strange tcpip issue - VMS ; OK please be gentle, it must be 15 years since I last touched a vax./vms So VMS 7.3 installed and working on a subnetted network. (tcp on a vax. new to me, it was all decnet and lat in my ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: strange tcpip issue

  1. strange tcpip issue

    OK please be gentle, it must be 15 years since I last touched a vax./vms

    So VMS 7.3 installed and working on a subnetted network. (tcp on a vax. new
    to me, it was all decnet and lat in my day).


    So. my company use the RFC1918 scheme globally the UK has 10.32.0.0/12
    assigned to it. When we get to my home I have a wonderfully generous /28
    subnet mask applied.

    so whilst my dhcp router dishes out address with a netmask of
    255.255.255.240 which is picked up by my PC/linux boxes etc. I issue the
    command on my vms system


    TCPIP> ifconfig -a
    LO0: flags=100c89
    inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000 ipmtu 4096

    QE0: flags=c63
    inet 10.34.220.88 netmask ff000000 broadcast 10.255.255.255 ipmtu 1500

    QE1: flags=c43
    inet 192.168.17.125 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ipmtu
    1500

    TN0: flags=80

    so interface QE0 which is assigned using dhcp is picking up the correct ip
    address, but ignores the subnet mask and assigns the wrong mask of
    ff000000, and incorrect broadcast address.

    my pc etc on the same network gives me
    Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : netgear.com
    IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.34.220.89
    Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.240
    Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.34.220.81
    So I know my router/dhcp configs are right.

    I had seen similar in old systems years ago, where ip stacks did not
    properly support subnet masking. But I would have thought DEC would have got
    this right.

    Advice please guys how do I fix this



  2. Re: strange tcpip issue

    Tim Wilkinson wrote:

    > OK please be gentle, it must be 15 years since I last touched a vax./vms


    Aha, excuses, excuses ... ;-)

    > So VMS 7.3 installed and working on a subnetted network. (tcp on a vax. new
    > to me, it was all decnet and lat in my day).
    > [...snip...]
    >
    > I had seen similar in old systems years ago, where ip stacks did not
    > properly support subnet masking. But I would have thought DEC would have got
    > this right.


    Old(er) versions of TCP/IP Services did indeed have this problem.
    I don't recall off the top of my head which version this eventually
    got fixed in. Please tell us what version you are using:

    $ tcpip show version

    > Advice please guys how do I fix this


    Simple: install a more recent version where subnetting works.

  3. Re: strange tcpip issue


    "R.A.Omond" wrote in message
    news:48ae869d$0$90264$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
    > Tim Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >> OK please be gentle, it must be 15 years since I last touched a vax./vms

    >
    > Aha, excuses, excuses ... ;-)
    >


    But in my case true

    >>

    > Old(er) versions of TCP/IP Services did indeed have this problem.
    > I don't recall off the top of my head which version this eventually
    > got fixed in. Please tell us what version you are using:
    >
    > $ tcpip show version


    and as if by magic :-

    TCPIP> show version

    Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS VAX Version V5.1
    on a VAXserver 3900 Series running OpenVMS V7.3



    >
    >> Advice please guys how do I fix this

    >
    > Simple: install a more recent version where subnetting works.


    And here lies the rub. I am using simh and a hobbyist install at home. No
    access to updates etc. Not like when I had multitude of real vaxes and
    support contracts etc. (go on what is the collective noun for a group of
    vaxes and don't tell me it is a cluster) It is just my home network for ease
    is vpned into the company network otherwise I would have stuck with
    addresses that had their subnets in the recognised class ranges


    Thanks


    Tim



  4. Re: strange tcpip issue

    Tim Wilkinson wrote:
    > ...snip...]
    >> $ tcpip show version

    >
    > and as if by magic :-
    >
    > TCPIP> show version
    >
    > Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS VAX Version V5.1
    > on a VAXserver 3900 Series running OpenVMS V7.3


    Yep, if I recall correctly, version 5.1 didn't subnet properly.

    >>> Advice please guys how do I fix this

    >> Simple: install a more recent version where subnetting works.

    >
    > And here lies the rub. I am using simh and a hobbyist install at home. No
    > access to updates etc. Not like when I had multitude of real vaxes and
    > support contracts etc. (go on what is the collective noun for a group of
    > vaxes and don't tell me it is a cluster) It is just my home network for ease
    > is vpned into the company network otherwise I would have stuck with
    > addresses that had their subnets in the recognised class ranges


    "No access to updates" ??

    Sure you have ... you just need to ask politely here ;-)

    Do you have access from your home network to the big, bad,
    outside world ?

  5. Re: strange tcpip issue

    > "No access to updates" ??
    >
    > Sure you have ... you just need to ask politely here ;-)
    >
    > Do you have access from your home network to the big, bad,
    > outside world ?


    Please, pretty please with a sugar coating, is that nice and polite enough?

    Plenty of outside access. If somebody can point me in the right direction to
    updates.

    Thanks for the help.



  6. Re: strange tcpip issue

    In article ,
    "Tim Wilkinson" writes:
    >> "No access to updates" ??
    >>
    >> Sure you have ... you just need to ask politely here ;-)
    >>
    >> Do you have access from your home network to the big, bad,
    >> outside world ?

    >
    > Please, pretty please with a sugar coating, is that nice and polite enough?
    >
    > Plenty of outside access. If somebody can point me in the right direction to
    > updates.
    >
    > Thanks for the help.


    OK, let me say it before anyone else does!!

    Go to Process Software and get Multinet under their hobbyist program.
    You won't regret it and you'll never go back to UCX.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  7. Re: strange tcpip issue

    Tim Wilkinson wrote:
    >> "No access to updates" ??
    >>
    >> Sure you have ... you just need to ask politely here ;-)
    >>
    >> Do you have access from your home network to the big, bad,
    >> outside world ?

    >
    > Please, pretty please with a sugar coating, is that nice and polite enough?
    >
    > Plenty of outside access. If somebody can point me in the right direction to
    > updates.


    I'll dig out the appropriate CD some time this afternoon
    and I'll get back to you off-line.

  8. Re: strange tcpip issue

    Tim Wilkinson wrote:
    > OK please be gentle, it must be 15 years since I last touched a vax./vms
    >
    > So VMS 7.3 installed and working on a subnetted network. (tcp on a vax. new
    > to me, it was all decnet and lat in my day).
    >
    >
    > So. my company use the RFC1918 scheme globally the UK has 10.32.0.0/12
    > assigned to it. When we get to my home I have a wonderfully generous /28
    > subnet mask applied.
    >
    > so whilst my dhcp router dishes out address with a netmask of
    > 255.255.255.240 which is picked up by my PC/linux boxes etc. I issue the
    > command on my vms system
    >
    >
    > TCPIP> ifconfig -a
    > LO0: flags=100c89
    > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000 ipmtu 4096
    >
    > QE0: flags=c63
    > inet 10.34.220.88 netmask ff000000 broadcast 10.255.255.255 ipmtu 1500
    >
    > QE1: flags=c43
    > inet 192.168.17.125 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ipmtu
    > 1500
    >
    > TN0: flags=80
    >
    > so interface QE0 which is assigned using dhcp is picking up the correct ip
    > address, but ignores the subnet mask and assigns the wrong mask of
    > ff000000, and incorrect broadcast address.
    >
    > my pc etc on the same network gives me
    > Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:
    >
    > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : netgear.com
    > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.34.220.89
    > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.240
    > Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.34.220.81
    > So I know my router/dhcp configs are right.
    >
    > I had seen similar in old systems years ago, where ip stacks did not
    > properly support subnet masking. But I would have thought DEC would have got
    > this right.
    >
    > Advice please guys how do I fix this
    >
    >


    Which TCP/IP stack are you using? There is one available from HP which
    is known as "The Ultrix Connection" or "UCX". There are also a few
    third party TCP/IP stacks available; "Multinet" from TGV, Inc is one such.

    FWIW I configured my VMS systems without the benefit of DHCP. My router
    assigns addresses from "100" up. My HP printer and all the VMS,
    Solaris, and Linux systems have static addresses (1-99) configured using
    the tools in SYS$MANAGER:TCPIP*. This allows my PC to KNOW where to
    find my Alphas, my VAXen (if I ever power them up again) and my Sun
    Ultra 10 workstations.

    --
    draco vulgaris



  9. OpenVMS patches - FTP site

    Start at: ftp.itrc.hp.com using anonymous FTP. The "/openvms_patches"
    directory should have what you need, split out by hardware type and OS
    version.

    --
    Cheers, Colin.
    Legacy = Stuff that works properly!



  10. Re: OpenVMS patches - FTP site

    Colin Butcher wrote:
    > Start at: ftp.itrc.hp.com using anonymous FTP. The "/openvms_patches"
    > directory should have what you need, split out by hardware type and OS
    > version.
    >


    I thought of pointing to that one, but I wasn't sure if
    the TCPIP "patches" where full kits or not...

  11. Re: strange tcpip issue

    In article <6h7ohaFjp7tnU1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    [...]
    >> Plenty of outside access. If somebody can point me in the right direction to
    >> updates.
    >>
    >> Thanks for the help.

    >
    >OK, let me say it before anyone else does!!
    >
    >Go to Process Software and get Multinet under their hobbyist program.
    >You won't regret it and you'll never go back to UCX.
    >


    Don't forget TCPware from the same company; another fine product to make one
    forget UCX/TCPIP "Services"...
    [...]

  12. Re: strange tcpip issue

    Tim Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    > OK please be gentle, it must be 15 years since I last touched a vax./vms
    >
    > So VMS 7.3 installed and working on a subnetted network. (tcp on a vax. new
    > to me, it was all decnet and lat in my day).
    >
    > So. my company use the RFC1918 scheme globally the UK has 10.32.0.0/12
    > assigned to it. When we get to my home I have a wonderfully generous /28
    > subnet mask applied.
    >
    > so whilst my dhcp router dishes out address with a netmask of
    > 255.255.255.240 which is picked up by my PC/linux boxes etc. I issue the
    > command on my vms system
    >
    > TCPIP> ifconfig -a
    > LO0: flags=100c89
    > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000 ipmtu 4096
    >
    > QE0: flags=c63
    > inet 10.34.220.88 netmask ff000000 broadcast 10.255.255.255 ipmtu 1500
    >
    > QE1: flags=c43
    > inet 192.168.17.125 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ipmtu
    > 1500
    >
    > TN0: flags=80
    >
    > so interface QE0 which is assigned using dhcp is picking up the correct ip
    > address, but ignores the subnet mask and assigns the wrong mask of
    > ff000000, and incorrect broadcast address.
    >
    > my pc etc on the same network gives me
    > Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:
    >
    > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : netgear.com
    > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.34.220.89
    > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.240
    > Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.34.220.81
    > So I know my router/dhcp configs are right.
    >
    > I had seen similar in old systems years ago, where ip stacks did not
    > properly support subnet masking. But I would have thought DEC would have got
    > this right.
    >
    > Advice please guys how do I fix this


    VMS machines typically do not get DHCP served, they typically have
    static addresses assigned to them and configured on them.

    That said, as others have pointed out, UCX took the usual few tries to
    get it "right". CIDR is a fairly new innovation from the viewpoint of
    VMS IP stacks. Even PSC didn't come out with that until fairly recently,
    relatively speaking.

    D.J.D.

  13. Re: strange tcpip issue


    "David J Dachtera" wrote in message
    news:48AF6B1A.2E6F4CEA@spam.comcast.net...

    > VMS machines typically do not get DHCP served, they typically have
    > static addresses assigned to them and configured on them.
    >
    > That said, as others have pointed out, UCX took the usual few tries to
    > get it "right". CIDR is a fairly new innovation from the viewpoint of
    > VMS IP stacks. Even PSC didn't come out with that until fairly recently,
    > relatively speaking.
    >
    > D.J.D.


    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.

    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. Other kit
    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.



  14. Re: strange tcpip issue

    Tim Wilkinson wrote:
    > "David J Dachtera" wrote in message
    > news:48AF6B1A.2E6F4CEA@spam.comcast.net...
    >
    >> VMS machines typically do not get DHCP served, they typically have
    >> static addresses assigned to them and configured on them.
    >>
    >> That said, as others have pointed out, UCX took the usual few tries to
    >> get it "right". CIDR is a fairly new innovation from the viewpoint of
    >> VMS IP stacks. Even PSC didn't come out with that until fairly recently,
    >> relatively speaking.
    >>
    >> D.J.D.

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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. Other kit
    > 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.
    >
    >


    Why not just run a TCPIP Services version that works ?

  15. Re: strange tcpip issue

    In article <8iWrk.47097$E41.38763@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. Other kit
    > 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.


  16. Re: strange tcpip issue

    Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
    > In article <8iWrk.47097$E41.38763@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. Other kit
    >>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!


  17. Re: strange tcpip issue

    In article , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes:
    >Why not just run a TCPIP Services version that works ?


    The (not so) funny answer: There is none at all (better go with PSC products)

    The serious answer; TCPIP V5.3 is the last for VAX, so to get what he
    wants, he would need to force HP to release a current TCPIP for VAX also.
    Or to switch his hardware platform (like to Personal Alpha - Charon = $)...

    --
    Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTÖGER
    Network and OpenVMS system specialist
    E-mail Peter@LANGSTOeGER.at
    A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist

  18. Phase V: it's not just the UI, U know.

    On Aug 24, 9:46 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. Other kit
    > >>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!


    "It was clear almost from day one that DECNet V would not fly!"

    Tell that to the folks in charge at GM, Boeing, Siemens, British
    Telecom, and many others in the mid 1980s and early 1990s.

    Put to one side the NCL user interface - unfamiliar it may have been,
    unusable it wasn't, once you got used to it (hmm, just like the
    Windows addicts say today about Linux, or even as some of them say
    about XP vs Vista...).

    OSI networking (which was the foundation for Phase V) solved loads of
    problems that the IP world has hardly noticed yet (and at least one
    which will be all too familiar with folks around the world). Like the
    VMS world vs the PC world, VMS and OSI benefit from an "architecture",
    rather than from an anarchic growth over decades. Same goes for
    properly designed VMS-based and OSI-based applications. The mail
    protocols SMTP and POP date back to an era of 110 baud teletypes and
    computers with 32kwords of memory.

    When X.400 OSI email came out, in the 1980s (?), it had reliable proof
    of identity, reliable proof of delivery, and anti-tamper mechanisms
    built in, but needed a bit of extra connectivity and compute power and
    admin to make them work. If I remember rightly, it even had support
    for "compound documents" (y'know, DEC-CDA-derived things like embedded
    pictures and spreadsheets etc) before Internerd email provided
    widespread support for MIME-encoding.

    Today, there's more than enough connectivity and compute power around
    to make these X.400 things work with no significant extra cost
    (today's average domestic DSL router has more bandwidth and compute
    power than an early-1980s VAX), but perhaps because most folks' email
    service is provided by folks who are providing it "free", or by
    software providers whose users mostly wouldn't understand "security"
    if it hit them in the face, there's zero visible incentive for
    investment to improve the email user experience. The result: years
    after spam became a problem, we're still stuck with SMTP and an email/
    spam nightmare which is only partly mitigated by dozens of incomplete
    and un-co-ordinated Band-Aids.

    Funny way to run a network, where the needs of the folks *ab*using it
    (for spam) outweigh the needs of the legitimate users (the ones who
    are paying, albeit only a tiny amount, for the service).

  19. Re: Phase V: it's not just the UI, U know.

    johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > On Aug 24, 9:46 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. Other kit
    >>>> 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!

    >
    > "It was clear almost from day one that DECNet V would not fly!"
    >
    > Tell that to the folks in charge at GM, Boeing, Siemens, British
    > Telecom, and many others in the mid 1980s and early 1990s.
    >
    > Put to one side the NCL user interface - unfamiliar it may have been,
    > unusable it wasn't, once you got used to it (hmm, just like the
    > Windows addicts say today about Linux, or even as some of them say
    > about XP vs Vista...).
    >
    > OSI networking (which was the foundation for Phase V) solved loads of
    > problems that the IP world has hardly noticed yet (and at least one
    > which will be all too familiar with folks around the world). Like the
    > VMS world vs the PC world, VMS and OSI benefit from an "architecture",
    > rather than from an anarchic growth over decades. Same goes for
    > properly designed VMS-based and OSI-based applications. The mail
    > protocols SMTP and POP date back to an era of 110 baud teletypes and
    > computers with 32kwords of memory.
    >


    Somehow, I can't get excited about a product that solves problems I
    didn't have when it was introduced, and which, ten or so years later, I
    still don't have. SMTP and POP may be "obsolete" but they have been
    delivering mail for the last 25 years or so and may be good for another
    ten or twenty years. DECnet Phase IV may be obsolete but it does the
    job I need done!

  20. 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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast