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

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.

"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

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 ?

> "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.

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

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.

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

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!

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...

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"...
[...]

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.

"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.

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 ?

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.

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!

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

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).

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!

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.