18 Nov
2005
18 Nov
'05
1:12 p.m.
Alright,
I'm getting ready to make my 11/23+ available online for people to play
with, but I'm a bit stumped as far as how I should attach the serial
lines to my Ethernet network.
Now, I have a Sun server running Solaris 10 which I was able to connect
a couple serial lines to and then tunneled that through a telnet port,
but I'd rather not do that...with the setup I'm thinking of, we're
talking about a whole lot of cable running into that box.
Does anyone here have suggestions on what I should use for a terminal
server? If I could just mount a DECserver box in my PDP-11 chassis that
would be great, but isn't the Ethernet port DECnet-only?
I don't know what I'm doing when it comes to this, so feel free to
correct me.
As always, any help is appreciated
Julian
18 Nov
18 Nov
5:55 p.m.
Wolfe, Julian wrote:
Alright,
I'm getting ready to make my 11/23+ available online for people to play
with, but I'm a bit stumped as far as how I should attach the serial
lines to my Ethernet network.
Fun. What exactly do you have on the 11/23?
Only serial lines, or do you have ethernet as well?
Now, I have a Sun server running Solaris 10 which I
was able to connect
a couple serial lines to and then tunneled that through a telnet port,
but I'd rather not do that...with the setup I'm thinking of, we're
talking about a whole lot of cable running into that box.
That is one very common way of doing it.
Does anyone here have suggestions on what I should use
for a terminal
server? If I could just mount a DECserver box in my PDP-11 chassis that
would be great, but isn't the Ethernet port DECnet-only?
The ethernet port is ethernet only. :-)
However, the terminal server might be LAT only, in which case you'll
have some problems, since I assume you want people to be able to telnet
to the box from outside, so you really need something that speak tcp/ip
and telnet.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/172 - Release Date: 2005-11-15
19 Nov
19 Nov
12:27 p.m.
Wolfe, Julian wrote:
Alright,
I'm getting ready to make my 11/23+ available online for people to play
with, but I'm a bit stumped as far as how I should attach the serial
lines to my Ethernet network.
Now, I have a Sun server running Solaris 10 which I was able to connect
a couple serial lines to and then tunneled that through a telnet port,
but I'd rather not do that...with the setup I'm thinking of, we're
talking about a whole lot of cable running into that box.
Does anyone here have suggestions on what I should use for a terminal
server? If I could just mount a DECserver box in my PDP-11 chassis that
would be great, but isn't the Ethernet port DECnet-only?
Look on ebay for a DECserver 700. There are 8- and 16-port versions.
They will do telnet.
Peace... Sridhar
24 Nov
24 Nov
7:42 a.m.
On Saturday 19 November 2005 15:27, you wrote:
Wolfe, Julian wrote:
If you're looking on e-bay (or anyware else for that matter) be aware
there are several different model numbers for dec servers. many of
them do not support stand alone boot.
I have the DSRVW-YC. It does NOT support stand-alone boot.
It does support bootting from a BOOTP/TFTP server or MOP.
IIRC all the model numbers that have the -Y? suffix don't
support internal flash cards and require a boot server.
joe lang
Alright,
I'm getting ready to make my 11/23+ available online for people to play
with, but I'm a bit stumped as far as how I should attach the serial
lines to my Ethernet network.
Now, I have a Sun server running Solaris 10 which I was able to connect
a couple serial lines to and then tunneled that through a telnet port,
but I'd rather not do that...with the setup I'm thinking of, we're
talking about a whole lot of cable running into that box.
Does anyone here have suggestions on what I should use for a terminal
server? If I could just mount a DECserver box in my PDP-11 chassis that
would be great, but isn't the Ethernet port DECnet-only?
Look on ebay for a DECserver 700. There are 8- and 16-port versions.
They will do telnet.
Peace... Sridhar 
27 Nov
27 Nov
7:41 p.m.
The defacto standard for terminal servers for decades in the carrier class
(and below) was the Livingston Portmaster series. We used to have racks and
racks of PM2E's with a mix of isdn and pots cards.
If you want a terminal server, get the one designed by a company that
specialized in nothing but terminal servers and was the top-end cadillac of
the market. Get a PM2E. Ebay has lots of them cheap.
Jay West
28 Nov
28 Nov
3:44 a.m.
"Jay West" wrote:
The defacto standard for terminal servers for decades
in the carrier class
(and below) was the Livingston Portmaster series. We used to have racks and
racks of PM2E's with a mix of isdn and pots cards.
beg to differ. The portmaster was not (by any means) carrier class.
It was popular among those who where not colocated and/or didn't have much
money.
The ascend max & tnt where the carrier class defacto standard (ask uunet).
one trip to mae-east around 1998 would confirm that... you'd see rows
and rows and rows of them (along with large copper pipes carrying +48v)
having said that, the PM would be a good choice for someone who wanted
a cheap terminal server.
but if you wanted a high quality small terminal server I think you'd be
better off with a xylogics annex. The PM is easier to configure but the
annex will last longer. Both are based on low end x86 cpu's but the
xylogic's hardware and QA was much better than livingston's.
-brad
7:03 p.m.
You wrote....
beg to differ. The portmaster was not (by any means)
carrier class.
Sure it was. I was there ;) Debatable, but it certainly was
ubiquitous.
You're confusing your decades - In the day I was referring to, large ISP's
used portmasters, as there was no such thing as a tnt/max at the time, at
least not commonly. We had lots of portmasters, then we later went to cisco
AS5200/5800. But in the very early days, those did not exist either.
It was popular among those who where not colocated
and/or didn't have much
money.
I disagree. Most of the large ISP's around here started with PM's.
They
stayed with PM's for many years.
The ascend max & tnt where the carrier class
defacto standard (ask uunet).
Just because uunet used them? I think not. Depends on
your timeframe again.
I personally despised the ascend max & tnt. I've watched them catch fire
before, not just one random event - really crappy hardware design. Their
menu configuration is simply grotesque (about as horrid as the pipeline 50
config menus). I refused to use them (as did many other ISP's). I didn't
care for the USR total control stuff much either, but I'm a huge fan of
their courier I-modems and the v.everythings.
having said that, the PM would be a good choice for
someone who wanted
a cheap terminal server.
but if you wanted a high quality small terminal server I think you'd be
better off with a xylogics annex. The PM is easier to configure but the
annex will last longer. Both are based on low end x86 cpu's but the
xylogic's hardware and QA was much better than livingston's.
Again, I
humbly disagree. The PM was used by those providing large scale
dial up service very commonly, the xylogics annex was not very common in
that environment. For good reason.
But today, my ISP uses dual cisco 5800's. I always thought the 7206 stuffed
on top of each one was a kludge, but then, I'm still a big cisco fan.
Jay West
7:25 p.m.
Jay West declared on Monday 28 November 2005 22:03:
But today, my ISP uses dual cisco 5800's. I always
thought the 7206
stuffed on top of each one was a kludge, but then, I'm still a big
cisco fan.
Some of us don't like getting raped on pricing of networking gear.. even
EMC uses Allied Telesyn gear.
Anywho, I still prefer my Xyplex MAXserver 1600's, and Network 9000s,
which are based upon the venerable DECserver.
From what I've heard, the Engineering IT group at
Purdue has had plenty
of issues with Annex 3 boxes (some are still in service for a
dialup
modem pool there). I've never heard anyone I work with complain about
problems with Xyplex gear.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
8:31 p.m.
"Jay West" wrote:
You wrote....
Well, I respect your opinion, but when I say "large isp" I mean AOL or
UUNet. I'm talking about isp's with 100's of POPs, not one city. Ever
been to an interchange like MAE-East?
I never saw a portmaster in use by a large ISP.
and the decade was always 199x :-)
-brad
beg to differ. The portmaster was not (by any
means) carrier class.
Sure it was. I was there ;) Debatable, but it certainly was
ubiquitous.
You're confusing your decades - In the day I was referring to, large ISP's
used portmasters, as there was no such thing as a tnt/max at the time, at
least not commonly. 
6745
days inactive
6756
days old
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
alexeyt＠freeshell.org -
aw288＠osfn.org -
bqt＠update.uu.se -
brad＠heeltoe.com -
ISC277＠CLCILLINOIS.EDU -
jclang＠notms.net -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
ploopster＠gmail.com