🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <143@daitc.ARPA> generous@daitc.ARPA (Curtis Generous) writes:
>Is there a version of Dynix out there that supports the internet domain name 
>server and the resolver routines? Any info is appreciated.

I think the answer is "Not Yet".  From the 3.0.4 netdb.h:

	struct	hostent {
		char	*h_name;	/* official name of host */
		char	**h_aliases;	/* alias list */
		int	h_addrtype;	/* host address type */
		int	h_length;	/* length of address */
	#ifdef notyet
		char	**h_addr_list;	/* list of addresses from name server */
	#define	h_addr	h_addr_list[0]	/* address, for backward compatiblity */
	#else
		char	*h_addr;	/* address */
	#endif notyet
	};

We brought up BIND 4.8 under 3.0.4 without any trouble.  However,
one needs DYNIX sources to relink the utilities with the resolver.

I really hope the next DYNIX release supports the nameserver; the static
host table routines aren't terribly useful these days.

--
Fletcher Mattox		fletcher@cs.utexas.edu

In article <2961@cs.utexas.edu>, fletcher@cs (Fletcher Mattox) writes:
>In article <143@daitc.ARPA> generous@daitc.ARPA (Curtis Generous) writes:
>>Is there a version of Dynix out there that supports the internet domain name 
>>server and the resolver routines? Any info is appreciated.
>
>I think the answer is "Not Yet".  From the 3.0.4 netdb.h:


But talk to the uunet people who must be using something...





rich.
-- 

In article <143@daitc.ARPA> generous@daitc.ARPA (Curtis Generous) writes:
>Is there a version of Dynix out there that supports the internet domain name 
>server and the resolver routines? Any info is appreciated.

We have them running under 2.1 and (will soon) under 3.0; but I am all
but certain that we can't release the sources without violating our license.
If you have a BSD source license, you'll find that these are not difficult
to port.  If you don't, I'm not sure how hard it will be.

---Rsk

In article <264@mace.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@mace.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>In article <143@daitc.ARPA> generous@daitc.ARPA (Curtis Generous) writes:
>>Is there a version of Dynix out there that supports the internet domain name 
>>server and the resolver routines? Any info is appreciated.
>
>We have them running under 2.1 and (will soon) under 3.0; but I am all
>but certain that we can't release the sources without violating our license.
>If you have a BSD source license, you'll find that these are not difficult
>to port.  If you don't, I'm not sure how hard it will be.

I just added the support to the Dynix 3.0.8 kernel to support the last bits
of the 1 or 2 ioctl's that Sequent hasn't completed.  They have all the
guts in place, but they haven't yet put in the hooks.  Without kernel
source, there isn't much you can do as yet.

Gerrit Huizenga (gh3@s.cc.purdue.edu)

You haven't lived until you've had to wait for a NS32032 processor
(even if you have 14 of them, some things don't work in parallel) do a
linear search on a 6,500 line /etc/hosts (thats how big the arpanet
host table is today).

Ignoring the issue of not being able to connect to sites not in the
host tables, the speed alone is enough reason to scrap the current
implementation (I'm sure that it runs fine on their 40 line host file
for their local ethernet). It's so bad that I've been begging them to
send us NFS so we can use the yellow pages!  (I loathe the yellow
pages. The yellow pages are a wonderful example of how a good idea can
be destroyed by a bad design and a worse implementation)

Our "solution" was the obvious one. For critical programs like
sendmail, we totally scrap what Sequent delivers and install a version
that uses bind.

For things like ftp or telnet, we have a small program that uses bind
to turn a hostname into an ip address. Then we ftp to the address.

The Sequent could be a wonderful networking machine if they would let
the engineers keep the networking software within 3-4 years of current
technology.

Sequent has a very nice hardware base, but I really wish I could
call the software something better than "adequate".

(We've had ZERO hardware downtime in 16 months if you need an
example of how the hardware works.)

--rick

In article <44375@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes:
>The Sequent could be a wonderful networking machine if they would let
>the engineers keep the networking software within 3-4 years of current
>technology.
>
>Sequent has a very nice hardware base, but I really wish I could
>call the software something better than "adequate".

What was the criteria used to select the system that would run uunet?

It seems to me that a reliable and complete set of networking tools
would be of prime importance in this application.

-- 
{alberta,pyramid,uunet}!ncc!lyndon  lyndon@Nexus.CA

The selection criteria for uunet included the ability to run
a minimum of 50 simultaneous uucicos; to support at least 2 56kbps
X.25 lines; and to support at least 4 16 port multiplexors.

The networking code is adequate. However, TCP/IP is not a
large portion of the use of the machine.

---rick