Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:28:21 +0000
From:      Matt Thomas <matt@lkg.dec.com>
To:        Jaye Mathisen <osyjm@cdsnet.net>
Cc:        Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu>, "Andreas S. Wetzel" <root@deadline.snafu.de>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Q: Does anyone know about implementing LAT support? 
Message-ID:  <199504201028.KAA10181@whydos.lkg.dec.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:40:40 MST." <Pine.BSD/.3.91.950419223721.1962M-100000@mg1.cdsnet.net> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 
> 
> On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Terry Lambert wrote:
> 
> > I believe the DECServers, if downloaded by a VAX, will also support
> > non-LAT CTERM protocol connections -- CTERM is much easier to implement,
> > and you can buy the documentation for it and the underlying protocols
> > for about $180.00 for all the books you would need.

Jaye is correct.  No DECserver ever supported CTERM.  The DECSA (aka PLUTO
which was a PDP-11/24) was initially supposed to run CTERM but performance
was so bad that LAT was substituted.

Note that all the non-proprietary Phase IV specs are at
ftp://ftp.digital.com/pub/DEC/DECnet/PhaseIV/

No need to speed any money whatsoever.

> > I don't think anyone is planning on reverse engineering LAT and then
> > releasing it publically any time soon; DECNet would be a nice thing
> > for BSD to have, though...
> 
> I think Matt Thomas one time rambled about maybe doing this.  I have
> no idea how complex it would be.  Implementing, and actually having
> to use NCP gives me the cold sweats

I have about half a DECnet kernel written (source compatible with 
DECnet-ULTRIX at the socket and library level).  One of the problems
is that none of the LAN drivers support multiple physical addresses.
Nor is there is a way to enable a different physical address.

An interesting question is whether ncp/nml should be implemented or
should a more "BSDish" utility be invented (ifconfig for decnet?).
An advantage of ncp/nml is that is doesn't require changes to the host
operating system.  But ncp/nml might be daunting to new a user, but
would a new inteface be any less daunting?

The minimally useful applications that need to be present are
cterm ("set host" / dlogin), dap (nft/dcp/copy), and mail-11 (the utek
mail-11 software can be used).

Maybe once my work of drivers tapers off I can get back to DECnet...

Too little time, too much to do,

[And speaking of LAT, as proof of concept I wrote a user-mode LAT daemon.
It's implemented around select and non-blocking I/O (conceptually it could
be considered to be AST based since all the main loop does is select and
then dispatches for various fd).  The network I/O is done using the Berkeley
Packet Filter and the tty stuff is done through ptys.  Unlike most network
virtual terminal daemons, the LAT daemon controls multiple ptys.]


Matt Thomas                          Internet:   matt@lkg.dec.com
U*X Networking                       WWW URL:    http://ftp.dec.com/%7Ethomas/
Digital Equipment Corporation        Disclaimer: This message reflects my
Littleton, MA                                    own warped views, etc.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504201028.KAA10181>