Task-to_task, but using TCPIP instead of DECnet

[Piet Timmers_1]

Hi everybody,

I use a lot of DCL procedures with a task-to-task connection to other DECnet nodes.
My current infratructure does not support DECnet, so this will not work anymore.

Is there a tcpip solution for non transparant decnet task-to-task communication?

Thanks.

Piet Timmers

[Peter Godron]

Piet,
have you seen:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/wizard/wiz_1910.html

Which refers to:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/tcpip54.html
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/tcpip55.html

As a sideline:
Doesn't decnetPlus include the TCP/IP protocols ?! I assume you are not allowed decnetplus either ;-(

[David B Sneddon]

Piet,

Configure DECnet over IP and everything will
continue as before... just make sure the network
people allow port 399 (which is what DECnet over
IP uses).

Been there, done that, works fine.

Dave

[Robert Gezelter]

Piet,

In a gross sense, you could re-implement using TCP connections. However, DECnet Task-to-Task has many features (automatic validation of accounts, and execution within a particular user's account, to name a few) that are simply not in the TCP suite.

As was recommended, the DECnet over IP is the best way to gain the semantic functionality of DECnet in an IP-only infrastructure.

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

[Andreas Vollmer]

Hi Piet,

You will also need allowance for port 102 to have a complete working DECnet over IP.

Regards
Andreas

[Jan van den Ende]

Piet
(and @ all others)

The DECnet-over-IP answers indeed are THE solution.... IF you are not dealing with network "guru's" that have been taught the same mantra as ours: "we can not understand that idiot DECnet stuff, SO, it HAS to be considered unsafe, SO, we HAVE to block it"

In which case you can try to fight the fight we have been trying to fight, or, you can spend mega-EUR to redesign your app(s) to use socket-to-socket, with all the drawbacks.
_IF_ you have a management with some sense, feed them the financial argument, and start praying.

Sorry to be so negative.

And nevertheless: enjoy the change-of-year. Be careful with fireworks: nowadays they do make beautiful glass eyes, but the seeing with those is not optimal.
"prettig uiteinde en een goed begin!"

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[David Jones_21]

"The DECnet-over-IP answers indeed are THE solution.... IF you are not dealing with network "guru's" that have been taught the same mantra as ours: "we can not understand that idiot DECnet stuff, SO, it HAS to be considered unsafe, SO, we HAVE to block it"

The main reason we stopped carrying DECnet across the campus was that DECnet support from the router vendor cost a ton of money.

[Jan van den Ende]

David,

>>>
The main reason we stopped carrying DECnet across the campus was that DECnet support from the router vendor cost a ton of money.
<<<

IFAIK. _THAT_ is for transporting the DECnet PROTOCOL, and although that IS a shame, that is NOT what this was about. Running DECnet-over-IP only requires two ports to be opened, and then for the sake of the network infrastructure it is "just" something on IP, like TCP, or Telenet, or HTML, or whatever applic specific sockets.

The paranoia a mentioned before is about the refusal to allow ports 102 & 399.

fwiw

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Jan van den Ende]

David,

>>>
The main reason we stopped carrying DECnet across the campus was that DECnet support from the router vendor cost a ton of money.
<<<

IFAIK. _THAT_ is for transporting the DECnet PROTOCOL, and although that IS a shame, that is NOT what this was about. Running DECnet-over-IP only requires two ports to be opened, and then for the sake of the network infrastructure it is "just" something on IP, like TCP, or Telnet, or HTML, or whatever applic specific sockets.

The paranoia I mentioned before is about the refusal to allow ports 102 & 399.

fwiw

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[David B Sneddon]

I believe that you only need port 399 for DECnet
over IP -- port 102 is for OSI over IP.
We only have port 399 enabled here and have no
problems.

Dave