Discussion:
What would you miss if DECnet got the chop? Was: "bad select 38" (OpenSSL on VMS)
(too old to reply)
Paul Sture
2016-09-18 07:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
I'd certainly miss one or two things that DECnet does:

o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.

o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).

o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.

o - FAL
--
It was untidy, so got unplugged.
It was unplugged, so got thrown away.
Dirk Munk
2016-09-18 08:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
First of all, which DECnet do you mean? DECnet Phase IV should have
been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how it
works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very different
from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are they too
stupid to understand it?

Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning Netbios
in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?

Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???

DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot to
propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
SSL, SSH etc.

But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't want
to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
maintenance on the application level are much and much better. Thinking
in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has nothing to
do with applications, idiotic.

So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
full VMS file specifications looks?

node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version

It start with node::

Try that with plain IP.

Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
really no standards at all (!!). It is exactly what we should not have
in times that well structured security and dependable network
communication is of the utmost importance.
David Froble
2016-09-18 09:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
First of all, which DECnet do you mean? DECnet Phase IV should have
been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how it
works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very different
from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are they too
stupid to understand it?
I use IV, which suits my purposes. Sorry you don't approve. Actually, I don't
give a damn what you think. If you're going to take the attitude that it's your
way or the highway, well, good luck, you''ll need it, but I don't think you'll
have it. People are allowed to have differing opinions. Even stupid people
like me.
Post by Dirk Munk
Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning Netbios
in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?
Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???
DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot to
propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
SSL, SSH etc.
But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't want
to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
maintenance on the application level are much and much better. Thinking
in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has nothing to
do with applications, idiotic.
So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
full VMS file specifications looks?
node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version
Yes, my thoughts also ....
Post by Dirk Munk
Try that with plain IP.
Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
really no standards at all (!!). It is exactly what we should not have
in times that well structured security and dependable network
communication is of the utmost importance.
In general I agree with what you've written. I consider DECnet as a part of
VMS, and if one really doesn't want VMS, then just go and use something else.
Dirk Munk
2016-09-18 10:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Froble
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
First of all, which DECnet do you mean? DECnet Phase IV should have
been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how
it works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very
different from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are
they too stupid to understand it?
I use IV, which suits my purposes. Sorry you don't approve. Actually,
I don't give a damn what you think. If you're going to take the
attitude that it's your way or the highway, well, good luck, you''ll
need it, but I don't think you'll have it. People are allowed to have
differing opinions. Even stupid people like me.
Post by Dirk Munk
Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning
Netbios in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?
Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???
DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot
to propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
SSL, SSH etc.
But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't
want to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
maintenance on the application level are much and much better.
Thinking in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has
nothing to do with applications, idiotic.
So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
full VMS file specifications looks?
node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version
Yes, my thoughts also ....
Post by Dirk Munk
Try that with plain IP.
Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
really no standards at all (!!). It is exactly what we should not
have in times that well structured security and dependable network
communication is of the utmost importance.
In general I agree with what you've written. I consider DECnet as a
part of VMS, and if one really doesn't want VMS, then just go and use
something else.
Thanks David.

My ideas about Phase IV are not just opinions. Phase IV is a dead end,
it won't be long before you can't buy routers for Phase IV. You can't
make Phase IV traffic secure, you can't use it in a IP-only network
environment, you can't use it over the internet. Those are facts, not
opinions.

I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.

Does this make sense to you?

I'm sure DECnet Phase IV suits your purpose, but the nice thing with
DECnet is nothing changes on the application level when you go from
Phase IV to Phase V. Now look at IP, go from IPv4 to IPv6. You have to
rebuild your application, put two networks stacks in for as long you're
using dual stack.

So in your case:
- Go from DECnet Phase IV to DECnet Phase V: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from OSI transport to IPv4 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from IPv4 transport to IPv6 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from insecure to encrypted networking with IPsec: you don't have to
change anything in your application.
j***@yahoo.co.uk
2016-09-18 11:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by David Froble
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
First of all, which DECnet do you mean? DECnet Phase IV should have
been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how
it works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very
different from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are
they too stupid to understand it?
I use IV, which suits my purposes. Sorry you don't approve. Actually,
I don't give a damn what you think. If you're going to take the
attitude that it's your way or the highway, well, good luck, you''ll
need it, but I don't think you'll have it. People are allowed to have
differing opinions. Even stupid people like me.
Post by Dirk Munk
Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning
Netbios in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?
Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???
DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot
to propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
SSL, SSH etc.
But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't
want to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
maintenance on the application level are much and much better.
Thinking in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has
nothing to do with applications, idiotic.
So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
full VMS file specifications looks?
node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version
Yes, my thoughts also ....
Post by Dirk Munk
Try that with plain IP.
Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
really no standards at all (!!). It is exactly what we should not
have in times that well structured security and dependable network
communication is of the utmost importance.
In general I agree with what you've written. I consider DECnet as a
part of VMS, and if one really doesn't want VMS, then just go and use
something else.
Thanks David.
My ideas about Phase IV are not just opinions. Phase IV is a dead end,
it won't be long before you can't buy routers for Phase IV. You can't
make Phase IV traffic secure, you can't use it in a IP-only network
environment, you can't use it over the internet. Those are facts, not
opinions.
I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.
Does this make sense to you?
I'm sure DECnet Phase IV suits your purpose, but the nice thing with
DECnet is nothing changes on the application level when you go from
Phase IV to Phase V. Now look at IP, go from IPv4 to IPv6. You have to
rebuild your application, put two networks stacks in for as long you're
using dual stack.
- Go from DECnet Phase IV to DECnet Phase V: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from OSI transport to IPv4 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from IPv4 transport to IPv6 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from insecure to encrypted networking with IPsec: you don't have to
change anything in your application.
I'm convinced, but then I learned DECnet IV (protocols and
applications), OSI (protocols and applications), and IP4
(protocols and applications) and IP6 (vision - the rest
was still years away) all in the same few years in the
late 1980s (and not just on VMS either).

Afaict, the thing that did for DECnet/OSI (Phase V, etc)
was the learning curve of its unified management interface.
Its immediate OSI/VMS predecessor, VOTS/OSAK/etc, was
understandable to near-normal human beings. DECnet/OSI
suffered from "Swiss penknife syndrome".

IPv6 is still barely more than a vision for most folk. It
may be supplied and enabled with every modern Window box
and many/most Linux boxes, but how many people actually
know they've got it, let alone actually use it?

Do I want DECnet to hang around? I don't think the question
is properly formed: do we mean protocols on the wire,
applications that people use, or what? Though I suspect
the answer might still be "no" to both questions for many
people.

I see OMNI and OSAP are still on the latest VSI roadmap
(a pair of related products which started life as ways
to talk in a formally standardised vendor-independent
way to shop floor machines and other stuff too). Built
originally on OSI networking. I would be interested to
know if they still require an underlying OSI network,
or whether minnows like Siemens, GE, etc (and their
customers) have accepted that IP-only networks are the
future for manufacturing networks for everyone,
everywhere.
Dirk Munk
2016-09-18 12:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by David Froble
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
First of all, which DECnet do you mean? DECnet Phase IV should have
been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how
it works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very
different from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are
they too stupid to understand it?
I use IV, which suits my purposes. Sorry you don't approve. Actually,
I don't give a damn what you think. If you're going to take the
attitude that it's your way or the highway, well, good luck, you''ll
need it, but I don't think you'll have it. People are allowed to have
differing opinions. Even stupid people like me.
Post by Dirk Munk
Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning
Netbios in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?
Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???
DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot
to propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
SSL, SSH etc.
But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't
want to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
maintenance on the application level are much and much better.
Thinking in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has
nothing to do with applications, idiotic.
So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
full VMS file specifications looks?
node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version
Yes, my thoughts also ....
Post by Dirk Munk
Try that with plain IP.
Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
really no standards at all (!!). It is exactly what we should not
have in times that well structured security and dependable network
communication is of the utmost importance.
In general I agree with what you've written. I consider DECnet as a
part of VMS, and if one really doesn't want VMS, then just go and use
something else.
Thanks David.
My ideas about Phase IV are not just opinions. Phase IV is a dead end,
it won't be long before you can't buy routers for Phase IV. You can't
make Phase IV traffic secure, you can't use it in a IP-only network
environment, you can't use it over the internet. Those are facts, not
opinions.
I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.
Does this make sense to you?
I'm sure DECnet Phase IV suits your purpose, but the nice thing with
DECnet is nothing changes on the application level when you go from
Phase IV to Phase V. Now look at IP, go from IPv4 to IPv6. You have to
rebuild your application, put two networks stacks in for as long you're
using dual stack.
- Go from DECnet Phase IV to DECnet Phase V: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from OSI transport to IPv4 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from IPv4 transport to IPv6 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from insecure to encrypted networking with IPsec: you don't have to
change anything in your application.
I'm convinced, but then I learned DECnet IV (protocols and
applications), OSI (protocols and applications), and IP4
(protocols and applications) and IP6 (vision - the rest
was still years away) all in the same few years in the
late 1980s (and not just on VMS either).
Afaict, the thing that did for DECnet/OSI (Phase V, etc)
was the learning curve of its unified management interface.
Its immediate OSI/VMS predecessor, VOTS/OSAK/etc, was
understandable to near-normal human beings. DECnet/OSI
suffered from "Swiss penknife syndrome".
IPv6 is still barely more than a vision for most folk. It
may be supplied and enabled with every modern Window box
and many/most Linux boxes, but how many people actually
know they've got it, let alone actually use it?
Everybody who has an IPv6 internet connection. You will use it without
knowing it. Every Google request, every Netflix film, every Youtube film
will be transported over IPv6. Far more people then you may think.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Do I want DECnet to hang around? I don't think the question
is properly formed: do we mean protocols on the wire,
applications that people use, or what? Though I suspect
the answer might still be "no" to both questions for many
people.
DECnet as an API for applications, and as the always present
functionality in VMS. Not as protocol on the wire, no need you can use IP.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
I see OMNI and OSAP are still on the latest VSI roadmap
(a pair of related products which started life as ways
to talk in a formally standardised vendor-independent
way to shop floor machines and other stuff too). Built
originally on OSI networking. I would be interested to
know if they still require an underlying OSI network,
or whether minnows like Siemens, GE, etc (and their
customers) have accepted that IP-only networks are the
future for manufacturing networks for everyone,
everywhere.
Using IP as transport protocol is an OSI standard! It is not DECnet
Phase V specific. So I don't see any reason that OMNI and OSAP could not
be transported over IP. Now of course Siemens, GE etc. must also have
implemented the IP transport stack in their OSI networking for this to work.
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2016-09-18 14:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by David Froble
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and
such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
First of all, which DECnet do you mean? DECnet Phase IV should have
been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how
it works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very
different from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are
they too stupid to understand it?
I use IV, which suits my purposes. Sorry you don't approve. Actually,
I don't give a damn what you think. If you're going to take the
attitude that it's your way or the highway, well, good luck, you''ll
need it, but I don't think you'll have it. People are allowed to have
differing opinions. Even stupid people like me.
Post by Dirk Munk
Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning
Netbios in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?
Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???
DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot
to propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
SSL, SSH etc.
But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't
want to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
maintenance on the application level are much and much better.
Thinking in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has
nothing to do with applications, idiotic.
So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
full VMS file specifications looks?
node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version
Yes, my thoughts also ....
Post by Dirk Munk
Try that with plain IP.
Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
really no standards at all (!!). It is exactly what we should not
have in times that well structured security and dependable network
communication is of the utmost importance.
In general I agree with what you've written. I consider DECnet as a
part of VMS, and if one really doesn't want VMS, then just go and use
something else.
Thanks David.
My ideas about Phase IV are not just opinions. Phase IV is a dead end,
it won't be long before you can't buy routers for Phase IV. You can't
make Phase IV traffic secure, you can't use it in a IP-only network
environment, you can't use it over the internet. Those are facts, not
opinions.
I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.
Does this make sense to you?
I'm sure DECnet Phase IV suits your purpose, but the nice thing with
DECnet is nothing changes on the application level when you go from
Phase IV to Phase V. Now look at IP, go from IPv4 to IPv6. You have to
rebuild your application, put two networks stacks in for as long you're
using dual stack.
- Go from DECnet Phase IV to DECnet Phase V: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from OSI transport to IPv4 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from IPv4 transport to IPv6 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from insecure to encrypted networking with IPsec: you don't have to
change anything in your application.
I'm convinced, but then I learned DECnet IV (protocols and
applications), OSI (protocols and applications), and IP4
(protocols and applications) and IP6 (vision - the rest
was still years away) all in the same few years in the
late 1980s (and not just on VMS either).
Afaict, the thing that did for DECnet/OSI (Phase V, etc)
was the learning curve of its unified management interface.
Its immediate OSI/VMS predecessor, VOTS/OSAK/etc, was
understandable to near-normal human beings. DECnet/OSI
suffered from "Swiss penknife syndrome".
IPv6 is still barely more than a vision for most folk. It
may be supplied and enabled with every modern Window box
and many/most Linux boxes, but how many people actually
know they've got it, let alone actually use it?
Everybody who has an IPv6 internet connection...
Right. But it doesn't help that your Windows/Linux client comes
with an IPv6 stack built-in when your router and ISP has it
disabled anyway. And why should *I* care? Google, Youtube and
everything else works just fine.


You will use it without
knowing it. Every Google request, every Netflix film, every Youtube film
will be transported over IPv6. Far more people then you may think.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Do I want DECnet to hang around? I don't think the question
is properly formed: do we mean protocols on the wire,
applications that people use, or what? Though I suspect
the answer might still be "no" to both questions for many
people.
DECnet as an API for applications, and as the always present functionality
in VMS. Not as protocol on the wire, no need you can use IP.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
I see OMNI and OSAP are still on the latest VSI roadmap
(a pair of related products which started life as ways
to talk in a formally standardised vendor-independent
way to shop floor machines and other stuff too). Built
originally on OSI networking. I would be interested to
know if they still require an underlying OSI network,
or whether minnows like Siemens, GE, etc (and their
customers) have accepted that IP-only networks are the
future for manufacturing networks for everyone,
everywhere.
Using IP as transport protocol is an OSI standard! It is not DECnet Phase V
specific. So I don't see any reason that OMNI and OSAP could not be
transported over IP. Now of course Siemens, GE etc. must also have
implemented the IP transport stack in their OSI networking for this to work.
Dirk Munk
2016-09-18 14:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jan-Erik Soderholm
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by David Froble
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and
such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a
remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal
emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
First of all, which DECnet do you mean? DECnet Phase IV should have
been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how
it works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very
different from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are
they too stupid to understand it?
I use IV, which suits my purposes. Sorry you don't approve.
Actually,
I don't give a damn what you think. If you're going to take the
attitude that it's your way or the highway, well, good luck, you''ll
need it, but I don't think you'll have it. People are allowed to have
differing opinions. Even stupid people like me.
Post by Dirk Munk
Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning
Netbios in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?
Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???
DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot
to propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
SSL, SSH etc.
But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't
want to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
maintenance on the application level are much and much better.
Thinking in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has
nothing to do with applications, idiotic.
So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
full VMS file specifications looks?
node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version
Yes, my thoughts also ....
Post by Dirk Munk
Try that with plain IP.
Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
really no standards at all (!!). It is exactly what we should not
have in times that well structured security and dependable network
communication is of the utmost importance.
In general I agree with what you've written. I consider DECnet as a
part of VMS, and if one really doesn't want VMS, then just go and use
something else.
Thanks David.
My ideas about Phase IV are not just opinions. Phase IV is a dead end,
it won't be long before you can't buy routers for Phase IV. You can't
make Phase IV traffic secure, you can't use it in a IP-only network
environment, you can't use it over the internet. Those are facts, not
opinions.
I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.
Does this make sense to you?
I'm sure DECnet Phase IV suits your purpose, but the nice thing with
DECnet is nothing changes on the application level when you go from
Phase IV to Phase V. Now look at IP, go from IPv4 to IPv6. You have to
rebuild your application, put two networks stacks in for as long you're
using dual stack.
- Go from DECnet Phase IV to DECnet Phase V: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from OSI transport to IPv4 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from IPv4 transport to IPv6 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from insecure to encrypted networking with IPsec: you don't have to
change anything in your application.
I'm convinced, but then I learned DECnet IV (protocols and
applications), OSI (protocols and applications), and IP4
(protocols and applications) and IP6 (vision - the rest
was still years away) all in the same few years in the
late 1980s (and not just on VMS either).
Afaict, the thing that did for DECnet/OSI (Phase V, etc)
was the learning curve of its unified management interface.
Its immediate OSI/VMS predecessor, VOTS/OSAK/etc, was
understandable to near-normal human beings. DECnet/OSI
suffered from "Swiss penknife syndrome".
IPv6 is still barely more than a vision for most folk. It
may be supplied and enabled with every modern Window box
and many/most Linux boxes, but how many people actually
know they've got it, let alone actually use it?
Everybody who has an IPv6 internet connection...
Right. But it doesn't help that your Windows/Linux client comes
with an IPv6 stack built-in when your router and ISP has it
disabled anyway. And why should *I* care? Google, Youtube and
everything else works just fine.
I'm sure it doesn't interest you. The fact that there are no more IPv4
addresses available, who cares. The fact that this way the internet
can't expand any more, not important. The fact that ISP's have to use
carrier grade NAS that cripple all kind of network connections, a futility.

I know Sweden is a bit behind with IPv6, but Belgium for instance has
over 45% IPv6 connectivity. Google notices a steep incline in IPv6
traffic, and the end of the year it will be 20% on their servers.

It is interesting to see that you claim that IP is the future, and
DECnet is the past, and then you're not interested in IPv6 what is the
necessary future for IP.
Post by Jan-Erik Soderholm
You will use it without
knowing it. Every Google request, every Netflix film, every Youtube film
will be transported over IPv6. Far more people then you may think.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Do I want DECnet to hang around? I don't think the question
is properly formed: do we mean protocols on the wire,
applications that people use, or what? Though I suspect
the answer might still be "no" to both questions for many
people.
DECnet as an API for applications, and as the always present
functionality
in VMS. Not as protocol on the wire, no need you can use IP.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
I see OMNI and OSAP are still on the latest VSI roadmap
(a pair of related products which started life as ways
to talk in a formally standardised vendor-independent
way to shop floor machines and other stuff too). Built
originally on OSI networking. I would be interested to
know if they still require an underlying OSI network,
or whether minnows like Siemens, GE, etc (and their
customers) have accepted that IP-only networks are the
future for manufacturing networks for everyone,
everywhere.
Using IP as transport protocol is an OSI standard! It is not DECnet Phase V
specific. So I don't see any reason that OMNI and OSAP could not be
transported over IP. Now of course Siemens, GE etc. must also have
implemented the IP transport stack in their OSI networking for this to work.
Dirk Munk
2016-09-18 14:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by Jan-Erik Soderholm
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by David Froble
Post by Dirk Munk
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and
such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a
remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail
of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal
emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
First of all, which DECnet do you mean? DECnet Phase IV should have
been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how
it works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very
different from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are
they too stupid to understand it?
I use IV, which suits my purposes. Sorry you don't approve.
Actually,
I don't give a damn what you think. If you're going to take the
attitude that it's your way or the highway, well, good luck, you''ll
need it, but I don't think you'll have it. People are allowed to have
differing opinions. Even stupid people like me.
Post by Dirk Munk
Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning
Netbios in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?
Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???
DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot
to propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
SSL, SSH etc.
But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't
want to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
maintenance on the application level are much and much better.
Thinking in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has
nothing to do with applications, idiotic.
So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
full VMS file specifications looks?
node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version
Yes, my thoughts also ....
Post by Dirk Munk
Try that with plain IP.
Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
really no standards at all (!!). It is exactly what we should not
have in times that well structured security and dependable network
communication is of the utmost importance.
In general I agree with what you've written. I consider DECnet as a
part of VMS, and if one really doesn't want VMS, then just go and use
something else.
Thanks David.
My ideas about Phase IV are not just opinions. Phase IV is a dead end,
it won't be long before you can't buy routers for Phase IV. You can't
make Phase IV traffic secure, you can't use it in a IP-only network
environment, you can't use it over the internet. Those are facts, not
opinions.
I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.
Does this make sense to you?
I'm sure DECnet Phase IV suits your purpose, but the nice thing with
DECnet is nothing changes on the application level when you go from
Phase IV to Phase V. Now look at IP, go from IPv4 to IPv6. You have to
rebuild your application, put two networks stacks in for as long you're
using dual stack.
- Go from DECnet Phase IV to DECnet Phase V: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from OSI transport to IPv4 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from IPv4 transport to IPv6 transport: you don't have to change
anything in your application.
- Go from insecure to encrypted networking with IPsec: you don't have to
change anything in your application.
I'm convinced, but then I learned DECnet IV (protocols and
applications), OSI (protocols and applications), and IP4
(protocols and applications) and IP6 (vision - the rest
was still years away) all in the same few years in the
late 1980s (and not just on VMS either).
Afaict, the thing that did for DECnet/OSI (Phase V, etc)
was the learning curve of its unified management interface.
Its immediate OSI/VMS predecessor, VOTS/OSAK/etc, was
understandable to near-normal human beings. DECnet/OSI
suffered from "Swiss penknife syndrome".
IPv6 is still barely more than a vision for most folk. It
may be supplied and enabled with every modern Window box
and many/most Linux boxes, but how many people actually
know they've got it, let alone actually use it?
Everybody who has an IPv6 internet connection...
Right. But it doesn't help that your Windows/Linux client comes
with an IPv6 stack built-in when your router and ISP has it
disabled anyway. And why should *I* care? Google, Youtube and
everything else works just fine.
I'm sure it doesn't interest you. The fact that there are no more IPv4
addresses available, who cares. The fact that this way the internet
can't expand any more, not important. The fact that ISP's have to use
carrier grade NAS that cripple all kind of network connections, a futility.
Carrier grade NAT of course, not NAS.
Post by Dirk Munk
I know Sweden is a bit behind with IPv6, but Belgium for instance has
over 45% IPv6 connectivity. Google notices a steep incline in IPv6
traffic, and the end of the year it will be 20% on their servers.
It is interesting to see that you claim that IP is the future, and
DECnet is the past, and then you're not interested in IPv6 what is the
necessary future for IP.
Post by Jan-Erik Soderholm
You will use it without
knowing it. Every Google request, every Netflix film, every Youtube film
will be transported over IPv6. Far more people then you may think.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Do I want DECnet to hang around? I don't think the question
is properly formed: do we mean protocols on the wire,
applications that people use, or what? Though I suspect
the answer might still be "no" to both questions for many
people.
DECnet as an API for applications, and as the always present
functionality
in VMS. Not as protocol on the wire, no need you can use IP.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
I see OMNI and OSAP are still on the latest VSI roadmap
(a pair of related products which started life as ways
to talk in a formally standardised vendor-independent
way to shop floor machines and other stuff too). Built
originally on OSI networking. I would be interested to
know if they still require an underlying OSI network,
or whether minnows like Siemens, GE, etc (and their
customers) have accepted that IP-only networks are the
future for manufacturing networks for everyone,
everywhere.
Using IP as transport protocol is an OSI standard! It is not DECnet Phase V
specific. So I don't see any reason that OMNI and OSAP could not be
transported over IP. Now of course Siemens, GE etc. must also have
implemented the IP transport stack in their OSI networking for this to work.
Scott Dorsey
2016-09-18 15:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dirk Munk
My ideas about Phase IV are not just opinions. Phase IV is a dead end,
it won't be long before you can't buy routers for Phase IV. You can't
make Phase IV traffic secure, you can't use it in a IP-only network
environment, you can't use it over the internet. Those are facts, not
opinions.
This is true, however Phase V is also a dead end.

The days of worldwide DECNET over a public network are gone, gone, gone.

Anybody using DECNET today is likely tunnelling it through IP if they are
going any distance. Better to take out some layers and use standard IP
protocols to begin with.
Post by Dirk Munk
I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.
This argument was a good argument a decade ago, but it's too late now.
You are beating a dead horse.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
r***@gmail.com
2016-09-18 16:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dirk Munk
I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.
Does this make sense to you?
I'll take the blame. I've also been blamed for killing CP/M (by sticking
with CP/M 2.2) and WordStar (by sticking with WordStar 4).

It's only obsolete when something better comes along.
--
roger ivie
***@gmail.com
Dirk Munk
2016-09-18 16:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Dirk Munk
I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will
affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for
your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different
network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and
even VMS out.
Does this make sense to you?
I'll take the blame. I've also been blamed for killing CP/M (by sticking
with CP/M 2.2) and WordStar (by sticking with WordStar 4).
It's only obsolete when something better comes along.
Yes DECnet is very obsolete for VMS. I'm sorry, I've forgotten this.
What is the plain IP replacement for something simple as FAL please?
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2016-09-18 09:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
I miss a few features that my first car had in the early 80's, but
I do not want it back anyway.
Post by Paul Sture
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
I prefer *not* to have it at the target system. If so, I also need
access to that target system, that might be at some customer site that
i left "yesterday". If I need a trace of my work, I create it as a log
from my terminal emulator on my laptop.
Post by Paul Sture
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
How many (in a moderately large installation) still shuffle BACKUP savesets
around? We use: https://storserver.com/software/storserver-software-abc/
Post by Paul Sture
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2016-09-18 09:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What would you miss if DECnet got the chop?
Or more important, what would my customer miss if DECnet got the chop?

Nothing.

And myself? I do not remember last time I used a DECnet
based tool, utility, command file or whatever. 10+ years?
We still start DECnet (IV), but I do not really know why.

I fully agree that DECnet once was a nice environment with
a really good integration with VMS, but If I turn 180 degree
around at the future, I cannot see DECnet there.

I think we have to accept that the rest of the world selected
TCPIP for networking.
Scott Dorsey
2016-09-18 15:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jan-Erik Soderholm
I think we have to accept that the rest of the world selected
TCPIP for networking.
And, that being the case, we need to have the same features that people
have liked with DECNET (such as the remote save sets) available with IP.

In the Unix world, I use the SFTP filesystem for a lot of things that I
would have done more easily with DECNET transfers in the VMS world. In
the Windows world they have SMB fileshares integrated in much the way
DECNET is integrated into VMS.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2016-09-18 15:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Jan-Erik Soderholm
I think we have to accept that the rest of the world selected
TCPIP for networking.
And, that being the case, we need to have the same features that people
have liked with DECNET (such as the remote save sets) available with IP.
Who are "we"? The (remaining) VMS user community? Do we think that we
can decide what should be used on networks or the internet in general?

My guess is that we simply have to learn to live without remote save sets.

The best service we can do for VMS is to "play well" with whatever is
expected on todays networks. Right, there is DECnet-over-IP, but it
seems as most user/sites simply decided to use TCPIP tools directly.
Post by Scott Dorsey
In the Unix world, I use the SFTP filesystem for a lot of things that I
would have done more easily with DECNET transfers in the VMS world. In
the Windows world they have SMB fileshares integrated in much the way
DECNET is integrated into VMS.
I would guess there are a few more Windows nodes out there, then there
are VMS nodes. I guess volume does have *some* impact here.
Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott
Dirk Munk
2016-09-18 15:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Jan-Erik Soderholm
I think we have to accept that the rest of the world selected
TCPIP for networking.
And, that being the case, we need to have the same features that people
have liked with DECNET (such as the remote save sets) available with > IP.
YOU ALREADY HAVE THOSE FEATURES !!!!! IT IS CALLED DECNET OVER IP !!!!!

Why on earth would any one try to invent something that is already
there, that is plain silly. No other OS could use those features.
Post by Scott Dorsey
In the Unix world, I use the SFTP filesystem for a lot of things that I
would have done more easily with DECNET transfers in the VMS world. In
the Windows world they have SMB fileshares integrated in much the way
DECNET is integrated into VMS.
--scott
Marc Van Dyck
2016-09-18 15:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if
the in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for
DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote
(but in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of
software installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal
emulators can do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
The important is not to hurt applications... Moving to DECnet over IP
is totally harmless to them. So if development resources become scarce,
I'd say keep the top layers only, with IP transport, and ditch the
rest.
The systems I'm responsible for are still using FAL and task-to-task
thousand times per day, and there are no plans to change that.
Abandoning them is unthinkable in my opinion.
--
Marc Van Dyck
Dirk Munk
2016-09-18 16:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marc Van Dyck
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and
such, so if the in house environment is secure, then security isn't
an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a
remote (but in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of
software installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many
terminal emulators can do logging, but those logs aren't on the
target system.
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
The important is not to hurt applications... Moving to DECnet over IP
is totally harmless to them. So if development resources become scarce,
I'd say keep the top layers only, with IP transport, and ditch the
rest.
What "rest" do you mean? The OSI transport layers? They don't change and
are part of kit. If you don't use them, they will not bother you.
Post by Marc Van Dyck
The systems I'm responsible for are still using FAL and task-to-task
thousand times per day, and there are no plans to change that.
Abandoning them is unthinkable in my opinion.
V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
2016-09-18 15:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Sture
I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
removal of DECnet, for that matter.
Booo! Hisssss!
Ok, we know it's not secure. Run at your own risk.
I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and such, so if the
in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for DECnet.
If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
I personally find it can be useful.
It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a remote (but
in house) system.
o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail of software
installations and configuration sessions. Yes, many terminal emulators can
do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
Not on the top of my list but it would be nice to have about.
Post by Paul Sture
o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another node, and
restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either local or
remote).
o - DECnet tasks. Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
o - FAL
Seconded! DCL commands using NODE::<file-spec> are things I use quite often
and rely upon.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
Loading...