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

Fri Aug 2 20:11:59 EDT 2013

On 2013-08-02 19:32, Timothe Litt wrote:
>> 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.

Right. There is a connection between NSP versions and DECnet phases, but 
it's not that straight forward.

I believe NSP 3.0.0 is phase II.
I know that NSP 3.1.0 is phase II.
NSP 3.2.0 is DECnet phase III.
NSP 4.0.0 is phase IV.

I did some hunting around and yeah, phase III appears to have come with 
DECnet-20 V3, which was for TOPS-20 V5 only. So the KS appears to have 
stuck at phase II. Oh well...

MRC definitely got phase IV running on TOPS-20 on a KS. I'm surprised 
that he pulled that out from just a phase II implementation, along with 
whatever had been done on KL around the time (not sure how much further 
the KL had come when MRC did his work.)

	Johnny

>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>