jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) (05/08/91)
Has anyone successfully gotten HDB UUCP to carry on a conversation over a TCP/IP link?? It seems ignorant of SCO not to include this in either their UUCP or TCP/IP. They hit you up for the extra $$$ for TCP/IP, which should be part of the operating system already, and then they don't even provide all of the neccessary features. Sigh. -- CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL: +1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@Michigan.COM +1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." | ********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit |
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May7.203740.9416@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: > Has anyone successfully gotten HDB UUCP to carry on a conversation > over a TCP/IP link?? Yes. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
srodawa@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ron Srodawa) (05/10/91)
In article <_I5B8V7@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991May7.203740.9416@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >> Has anyone successfully gotten HDB UUCP to carry on a conversation >> over a TCP/IP link?? > >Yes. You are just whetting our appetites! How did you do it? The documents are completely silent on this matter. I would really appreciate a debriefing on just how you did this. I'm sure others would too. Ron. -- | Ronald J. Srodawa | Internet: srodawa@vela.oakland.edu | | School of Engineering and CS | UUCP: srodawa@vela.UUCP | | Oakland University | Voice: (313) 370-2247 | | Rochester, Michigan 48309-4401 | |
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/11/91)
In article <6361@vela.acs.oakland.edu> srodawa@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ron Srodawa) writes: > In article <_I5B8V7@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <1991May7.203740.9416@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: > >> Has anyone successfully gotten HDB UUCP to carry on a conversation > >> over a TCP/IP link?? > >Yes. > You are just whetting our appetites! How did you do it? I followed the cookbook instructions that came with the Excelan TCP/IP package. It's quite a nice package, though people used to classic BSD TCP/IP will be a trifle freaked out by it: it does everything the System V way, down to having inittab entries for all the rlogin ports (which means you can't rlogin to a system without providing a login and password). What they do is have a specific virtual terminal, ttyT64, that has a deamon listening to it. That deamon sees an open and accepts a system name, then establishes an rlogin to that system and sits there handling packets. You could bash something like this together with Bernstein's PTY package or expect in an afternoon. How SCO or anyone else wants to do it, I don't know. They might well have their own ttyT64 equivalent. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
huver@amgraf.UUCP (Huver) (05/12/91)
In article <AE7BYA@xds13.ferranti.com>, Peter da Silva says: [answering his previous "YES" waste-of-bandwidth to a question on UUCP over TCP/IP...] > > I followed the cookbook instructions that came with the Excelan TCP/IP > package... Do us a favor: if the subject matter is so damned clear as to warrant a "yes/no", don't bother to answer; because it usually isn't so clear. SCO Xenix docs have nothing on setting up UUCP via SCO TCP/IP. More, the Admin. Guide includes misleading info about this "Devconfig" file; plus they included an "nls" line in the Dialers file that uucico simply picks up and echos the parameters as send-expect sequence! If the base package uucico is incapable of using network services, why didn't/don't they include a uucico that works with Streams in the Streams or TCP/IP run-time? Are they too stupid to work one out? -huver !uunet!amgraf!huver
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (05/13/91)
In article <425@amgraf.UUCP> huver@amgraf.UUCP (Huver) writes: > In article <AE7BYA@xds13.ferranti.com>, Peter da Silva says: > [answering his previous "YES" waste-of-bandwidth to a question on UUCP over TCP/IP...] > > > > I followed the cookbook instructions that came with the Excelan TCP/IP > > package... > Do us a favor: if the subject matter is so damned clear as to warrant a > "yes/no", don't bother to answer; because it usually isn't so clear. Hey, don't act so indignant. After all, this is the same guy that claims he can't tell the difference between 240 cps and 1600 cps during interactive terminal use. Someone with that sort of reading speed can't be too far above the double-digits, eh? Remember: Just because someone has a terminal and a modem doesn't mean they have anything useful to contribute. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
lan_csse@netrix.nac.dec.com (CSSE LAN Test Account) (05/23/91)
In article <6361@vela.acs.oakland.edu> srodawa@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ron Srodawa) writes: >In article <_I5B8V7@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <1991May7.203740.9416@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >>> Has anyone successfully gotten HDB UUCP to carry on a conversation >>> over a TCP/IP link?? >> >>Yes. > >You are just whetting our appetites! How did you do it? The documents >are completely silent on this matter. I would really appreciate a >debriefing on just how you did this. I'm sure others would too. On systems that have TCP drivers in uucico and/or uucpd, the usual way is to create a Systems (or L.sys) entry somewhat like: sysname time device class address login_sequence phubar Any TCP TCP 16.20.176.7 in:--in ... I.e., the device and class fields are both TCP, and the address field is the IP address instead of the phone number. The TCP may have to be lower case for it to work. I recall seeing one system in which the device was the interface name (ln0 or se0 or ...), but I don't think this is usually needed, because packets should be handed to IP for routing and uucico shouldn't have to care which interface is used. You might try some combinations of these and see what sort of error messages you get. If the TCP value is unknown, then you probably don't have TCP support; if you get address rejections, you probably do have TCP support but the above format isn't quite right. You might also harass your vendor, telling them that we told you that uucp works over TCP and you want to know how to configure it... I'd look it up in the manuals, but this is an Ultrix system that is well behind the times in such matters. If someone has a manual with examples, how about posting one or two and telling us what kind of system it is...