[Info-vax] What would you miss if DECnet got the chop? Was: "bad select 38" (OpenSSL on VMS)

[Dirk Munk]

David Froble wrote:
> Dirk Munk wrote:
>> David Froble wrote:
>>> Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-09-29 22:34, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>>> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016-09-28 23:09, Rob Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2016-09-19, Dirk Munk <munk at home.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DECnet Phase IV and DECnet Phase V are two completely different
>>>>>>>>> products.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But phase V can communicate with Phase IV nodes.  RSX never got
>>>>>>>> Phase V.
>>>>>>>> What about DEC's other OSes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only VMS ever got Phase V. All other DEC OSes stayed at IV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect, Tru64 also had Phase V.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. Noted. So VMS and Tru64 then.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like Phase V to retain the ability to talk to Phase IV.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would assume/hope that this was not removed, if Phase V were
>>>>>>> worked
>>>>>>> on. But I would seriously question the sanity of anyone at VSI who
>>>>>>> suggested they should put any work into DECnet.
>>>>>>> At most, it could make sense to provide the ability that Multinet
>>>>>>> already have, of using TCP/IP as a transport for DECnet circuits,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> can be done for Phase IV. I suspect that could actually be of
>>>>>>> some use
>>>>>>> at a few places. And it has already been implemented.
>>>>>>> But anything beyond that, just would not make sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Johnny
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with the Multinet solution is that it is non-standard
>>>>>> (not
>>>>>> covered by IP RFC's), and that it does not cover OSI applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares? You have two Phase IV nodes, they can connect using IP. All
>>>>> else is unchanged. Phase IV couldn't care less about OSI applications
>>>>> anyway. The same goes for RFCs. You do not have to have an RFC to
>>>>> use a
>>>>> protocol. We are talking about DECnet here, remember? The fact that it
>>>>> can be carried over IP just means that you have your phase IV DECnet,
>>>>> nothing changed there. All that happened is that you can connect two
>>>>> DECnet Phase IV machines who only have connectivity through IP
>>>>> otherwise. A simple, obvious win, without any downsides at all (except
>>>>> in your head).
>>>>>
>>>>>     Johnny
>>>>
>>>> So you tell the people who need OSI over IP, that their systems don't
>>>> matter. Nice.
>>>
>>> Perhaps sign up for a Reading 101 course?  All he wrote was that if
>>> someone needed a particular capability, and they were able to get it,
>>> that's a good thing.  I don't read anything negative about OSI and
>>> DECnet V.
>>>
>> Are you suggesting that VSI should supply us with an IP stack that
>> offers us two incompatible versions of DECnet over IP? Because that is
>> the problem, the standardized RFC covered version of DECnet (and OSI)
>> over IP is not compatible with the non-standard version of Multinet.
>
> The way I understand it, DECnet IV doesn't know a thing about IP.  It is
> a feature in Multinet that does the routing over IP.  So when you
> mention DECnet over IP as if it is a DECnet feature, you've skirted
> reality.

I think it is using a kind of IP tunnel, at least it is using IP port 
700. I will try to find out what it does exactly. Just routing is 
impossible of course, DECnet Phase IV packets are very different from IP 
packets, and can not be handled by an IP router.

>
> Nor should you expect modifications to DECnet IV for any reasons, other
> than to keep it usable in the future.