[Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP?

Fri Aug 2 13:32:36 EDT 2013

> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before
I was wrong.  Call it a correctable memory error.  Note I said "pretty 
good".

3.0 is  what shows up if you show exec cha.  The NSP version doesn't 
match the DECnet phase in that case, which is what confused matters.

As I say, I had reason to dig into this more recently, and that resulted 
in better data.  The bits say Phase II.

Here are the bits (These were captured by Rob):

58 01 19 06 54 4F 50 53 32 30 00 06 00 01 00 01 7F 00 03 00 00 03 00 00 00

This is not a phase III transport init.  It's a Phase II NSP node init.

 >> 58 Startup message
 >> 01 Node init
 >> 19  Extensible binary node 25.
 >> 06  Image byte count
 >> 54 4F 50 53 32 30 T O P S 2 0
 >> 00 No intercept functions
 >> 06 Requests: Intercept requested, no node verification
 >>00 01 Blocksize 256.
 >>00 01 NSPsize 256.
 >> 7F 00 Maxlinks 127.
 >> 03 00 00 Routing version 3.0.0
 >>03 00 00 Comm version 3.0.0
 >>00  SYSVER length (it's omitted by TOPS-20)

Google AA-D600A-TC for the corresponding spec.

This communication may not represent my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.

On 02-Aug-13 13:20, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote:
>> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good
>> memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node
>> initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP.
>
> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. 
> (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.html)
>
>> PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III.  And
>> yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept
>> nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.)  Phase II messages have an
>> optional routing header to support this.
>
> Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-)
>
>> The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually
>> Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet).  The phase III implementation
>> actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking
>> Phase II to the -20.  Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to
>> Phase III.  Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart.
>
> Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV 
> which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still 
> talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really 
> important.
>
>> The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS
>> couldn't support the newer, larger monitors.  Marc Crispin managed to
>> squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address
>> space and never released.
>
> MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase 
> II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the 
> link I provided above, you yourself said as much before...
>
>> I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet
>> Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end.  (Well, thru the
>> present.)
>
> :-)
>
>> Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too
>> worried about 'official support' :-)
>
> Good point too.
>
>> Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV.  (But Phase V is an
>> engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user
>> interface: complexity, compatibility.  It's so unpopular that HP still
>> offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today!  It's a shame that it
>> turned out that way.)
>
> Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV.
>
>> We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he
>> can scare up a kit.
>
> Good luck!
>
>     Johnny
>
>>
>> This communication may not represent my employer's views,
>> if any, on the matters discussed.
>>
>> On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote:
>>>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable
>>>> it.  It's kicking around the net.
>>>
>>> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...?
>>>
>>>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is
>>>> one) can talk to it.  DECnet provided compatibility, but only between
>>>> adjacent Phases...
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure
>>> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation
>>> is out there, so it should be easy to verify.
>>>
>>> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else
>>> went beyond that.
>>>
>>>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV ->
>>>> anything.
>>>
>>> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all
>>> the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very
>>> limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I
>>> think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the
>>> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to
>>> to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if
>>> you want to talk about what DEC officially supported.
>>>
>>>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the
>>>> -20.
>>>
>>> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are
>>> still various limitations around.
>>>
>>>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes.  (I have the same
>>>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. )
>>>>
>>>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk
>>>> I've restored as yet.  Too many projects, not enough hours.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Time. Always a problem.
>>>
>>>     Johnny
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This communication may not represent my employer's views,
>>>> if any, on the matters discussed.
>>>>
>>>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are
>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>> being added to SIMH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have 
>>>>>>> generated an
>>>>>>> RSX
>>>>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something
>>>>>>> ready
>>>>>>> made it would be a big help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on
>>>>>> VMS
>>>>>> pretty quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license
>>>>> manager facility existed?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems
>>>>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Johnny
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Simh mailing list
>>>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com
>>>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5159 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/attachments/20130802/98eacf40/attachment-0002.bin>