[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:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It would seem to me, and no, I don't know how it works, that a feature
>>> could take DECnet packets, enclose them in IP packets, and the same
>>> feature at the destination would pull out the DECnet packets and send
>>> them on their way.
>>
>> Anything is possible, but let's stay with the reality.
>>
>> Multinet is offering a kind of DECnet Phase IV over IP interface,
>> using IP port 700. It is not covered by any RFC. I don't know if it
>> can be used with IPv6.
>>
>> The DEC/HP way of DECnet over IP is not only offering DECnet over IP,
>> but also OSI over IP (you can look at DECnet as just another OSI
>> application). It is covered by three RFC's, RFC1006, RFC1859, and
>> RFC2126, the latter is for IPv6.
>>
>> Both versions of DECnet over IP are incompatible.
>>
>> Now my simple question is, what should VSI offer, two incompatible
>> versions of DECnet over IP?
>>
>>
>
> If you look up thread at Michael Moroney's post, you'll see the
> reality.  He got DECnet built, but that's all the time VSI is going to
> put into DECnet.
>
> What you see today is all that you're ever going to see, with the
> understanding of "never say never".  Your question(s) are already
> answered.  Not that you're going to like the answer(s).

Let's start again shall we?

VSI is going to use the IP stack of Multinet as a base for their new IP 
services for VMS version 10.5.

The Multinet IP stack has no provisions to support DECnet Phase V / OSI 
over IP, you will not find the RFC's that I mentioned in their SPD.

Multinet has a different non-compatible version of DECnet Phase IV over IP.

Mr. Billquist stated the following:

"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."

That would break DECnet Phase V OSI, since it would no longer have an IP 
stack, and I told him so.

He replied:

"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)".

So he doesn't care that his suggestion would break DECnet Phase V OSI.

So I told him that he apparently doesn't care that customers using OSI 
would not be happy about that.

Then you accused me of not being able to read, because Mr. Billquist 
didn't say anything about Phase V / OSI, but in fact he did.

Hence my question to you, if you think VSI should support both 
incompatible versions of DECnet over IP.