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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-10-05 15:57, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> Second, you really should learn the topic before firing off all the
>> silly comments you do.
>>
>> David is entirely correct. The Multinet DECnet-over-IP really means that
>> DECnet is totally unaware of TCP/IP. Yes, the Multinet tunnels can use
>> both UDP and TCP, and the default port in both cases are 700.
>>
>> From DECnet point of view, it is just a simple line. Called something
>> like TCP-0-0. And you work with it just like any other line in DECnet.
>> It's a point-to-point line, over which DECnet establish a circuit to the
>> remote machine. No different than if you were to just have a simple
>> RS-232 cable between two machines, using DDCMP, and then have DECnet
>> communicate over that.
>>
>> Really, this is identical.
>>
>> Multinet then have a tool to define the TCP/IP connection between the
>> two points, which is totally outside the knowledge of DECnet.
>>
>> And in the Multinet tool, you define the remote host and port. Multinet
>> will then establish that connection, using TCP or UDP. And once it is
>> up, then from the DECnet point of view, you have a link which transports
>> bytes between the two nodes, using that line.
>>
>> DECnet can route things just as normal. One more line does not change
>> anything fundamentally. It's just a line.
>>
>> The two nodes so connected could be on the same or different areas. All
>> that is required is that DECnet can do routing, which have nothing to do
>> with TCP/IP.
>>
>> And the TCP/IP layer just have a connection between the two machines,
>> using the normal TCP/IP network. And what is transported on that
>> connection is totally irrelevant, as far as TCP/IP is concerned. It's
>> just bytes.
>>
>> Now, how hard can it be to understand?
>
> Not very hard, and now I understand why people think Phase V is doing
> the same, which it isn't. It is *not* tunneling like with Multinet. The
> only thing that is needed with Phase V is that the system on the other
> side understands DECnet over IP. That is exactly the same as setting up
> a FTP connection, if the other side doesn't have FTP loaded, it will not
> work. Other then that, with Phase V you can set up a DECnet over IP
> connection to any system in the world without having to set up tunnels.
> You do not use DECnet Phase IV addresses, or NSAP addresses, just IP
> addresses. No DECnet routing, no CLNS routing, just IP routing.

I have not seen anyone saying or expressing belief that the Multinet 
DECnet-over-IP was anything close to Phase V. Maybe you thought so, but 
I don't know where you would have gotten that from.

However, your next comment is again silly. The same you say is just as 
true for Multinet. All that is needed with Phase IV is that you have a 
system on the other side who understands the Multinet tunnel.

You seem to still fail to understand how it works. The Multinet link and 
tool do not know anything about DECnet or DECnet addresses. All it is 
concerned with is IP addresses. And so it also, obviously, do not know 
anything about DECnet routing. It don't really know anything about IP 
routing either. It's just communication over IP. Your FTP client, or FTP 
server don't know anything about IP routing either.

Any DECnet node already have a DECnet address, no matter if you have a 
Multinet tunnel or not. And adding a Multinet tunnel do change anything 
of your configuration in DECnet, except for adding a line. Although, I 
don't know if you even understand the concept of a line in DECnet at 
this point.

>> And in which way is this bad?
>
> Have I ever written it is bad, or made that suggestion? That is just
> your idea.

You claim that VSI will need to support two different DECnet-over-IP, 
and that this is bad.

Now, I claim that there will never really be support for either, but I 
fail to see the point of ripping out existing, functional code. 
Especially for something that is pretty much isolated from everything else.

>> And if you have phase V nodes that talk to each other, using whatever
>> transports and protocols they want, in which way does that matter here?
>
> The subject was that Phase V and Multinet both offer DECnet Over IP, and
> they seem incompatible. The question is what VSI is going to support.

Yes. And the decision for or against one have little, if anything to do 
with the decision for or against the other.

And one already exists, and works, while the other is an unknown. And I 
am arguing that the existing, working thing be left in place. What to do 
about the unknown thing is not something I'm going to decide, or even 
try to influence the decision about.

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol