From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 20 07:32:39 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA28975 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:32:39 -0700 Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com [16.1.0.33]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA28969 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:32:35 -0700 Received: from muggsy.lkg.dec.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/24Feb95) id AA26266; Thu, 20 Apr 95 07:26:40 -0700 Received: from whydos.lkg.dec.com by muggsy.lkg.dec.com (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) with SMTP id AA19731; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:26:29 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whydos.lkg.dec.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA10181; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:28:21 GMT Message-Id: <199504201028.KAA10181@whydos.lkg.dec.com> X-Authentication-Warning: whydos.lkg.dec.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: Jaye Mathisen Cc: Terry Lambert , "Andreas S. Wetzel" , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Q: Does anyone know about implementing LAT support? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:40:40 MST." X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5omega 10/6/94 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:28:21 +0000 From: Matt Thomas Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > 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.