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

Robert Jarratt robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com
Sun Aug 4 17:25:13 EDT 2013 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com [mailto:simh-bounces at trailing-
> edge.com] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
> Sent: 03 August 2013 01:12
> To: Timothe Litt
> Cc: simh at trailing-edge.com
> Subject: Re: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That
> Uses KDP or DUP?
> 
> 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.ht
> >> ml)
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simh mailing list
> Simh at trailing-edge.com
> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh


I thought I would try to see if I can get Phase III onto a VAX SIMH image. I
have NETRTG031 (like BE-X083A-BE from
http://iamvirtual.ca/VAX11/VAX-11-software.html), but that appears to need
VMS 3.4 and so I don't believe it is Phase III. Anyone have an actual DECnet
kit for Phase III that will install on VMS 3.3? Whether it needs a key
product to unlock like other pre V5 versions of DECnet I am not sure.

My other option is going to have to be RSX, but I am pretty poor on RSX and
could take a while to get something going there, if anyone has a ready-made
RSX image that does Phase III that would be great.

Thanks

Rob

More information about the Simh mailing list