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

[Paul Sture]

On 2016-10-05, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>
> 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.

Well I suppose you do need to give Multinet some kind of hint of where
the target DECnet node is.  By establishing a DECnet-over-IP tunnel from
node A to node B you've done that.  You do of course need to ensure the
correct bits of Multinet are configured at each end to process the
packets going through the tunnel.

The interesting bit might come if you are converting an existing DECnet
routing node to DECnet-over-IP.  Would you leave the routing bit inside
DECnet or move it off to the IP side?   I've never done it so don't know
what would be the best approach here.

> 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.

Back in the days when we were adding TCP/IP capability to existing
DECnet nodes, we tried to pick addresses which matched in some way, e.g.
DECnet node 23.123 would have an ip address of xxx.xxx.xxx.123, but that
was no more than a naming convention to make identifying a node from an
IP address buried in error messages or logfiles easier.

-- 
"I have spent most of the day putting in a comma and
 the rest of the day taking it out."  -- Oscar Wilde