Folks,

I tried to enable DHCP client on OpenVMS 9.2 x86 and rebooted system on
VirtualBox. It successfully obtained IP address from my router but.

I tried to access the Internet but got I/O error on network device -
permanent failure.

$ sh net

Product: DECNET Node: TSVMSP Address(es): 31.154

Product: TCP/IP Node: <TCP/IP host/node name not yet available> Address

(es): 0.0.0.0

$ ftp ftp.process.com

%TCPIP-E-FTP_NETERR, I/O error on network device

-TCPIP-E-EAI_FAIL, permanent failure

$

When I disabled DHCP client and assigned static IP address, all problems
disappeared.

$ sh net

Product: DECNET Node: TSVMSP Address(es): 31.154

Product: TCP/IP Node: tsvmsp.local Address(es): 192.168.1.166

$ ftp ftp.process.com

220 triton.process.com MultiNet FTP Server Process V5.6(17) at Sat
22-Apr-2023 5

:59PM-EDT

Connected to ftp.process.com.

Name (ftp.process.com:system): Exit

221 QUIT command received. Goodbye.

$

Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?

I tried different virtual machine software like QEMU/KVM on Ubuntu but I
still have same problem.

Tim

On 25/04/2023 00:41, fsword007@gmail.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I tried to enable DHCP client on OpenVMS 9.2 x86 and rebooted system on
> VirtualBox. It successfully obtained IP address from my router but.
>
> I tried to access the Internet but got I/O error on network device -
> permanent failure.
>
>
>
> $ sh net
>
>
>
> Product: DECNET Node: TSVMSP Address(es): 31.154
>
> Product: TCP/IP Node: <TCP/IP host/node name not yet available> Address
>
> (es): 0.0.0.0
>
> $ ftp ftp.process.com
>
> %TCPIP-E-FTP_NETERR, I/O error on network device
>
> -TCPIP-E-EAI_FAIL, permanent failure
>
> $
>
>
>
> When I disabled DHCP client and assigned static IP address, all problems
> disappeared.
>
>
>
> $ sh net
>
>
>
> Product: DECNET Node: TSVMSP Address(es): 31.154
>
> Product: TCP/IP Node: tsvmsp.local Address(es): 192.168.1.166
>
> $ ftp ftp.process.com
>
> 220 triton.process.com MultiNet FTP Server Process V5.6(17) at Sat
> 22-Apr-2023 5
>
> :59PM-EDT
>
> Connected to ftp.process.com.
>
> Name (ftp.process.com:system): Exit
>
> 221 QUIT command received. Goodbye.
>
> $
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>
>
>
> I tried different virtual machine software like QEMU/KVM on Ubuntu but I
> still have same problem.
>
>
>
> Tim
>
I had this, albeit I could connect to the Internet.

martinv suggested that SYS$MANAGER:SYS$NET_SERVICES_TCPIP.COM does not
get called, so when I ran it, it does mow show in a SHOW NET command,
albeit with an incorrect IP address

--
Chris

Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fsword007@gmail.com:

> Folks,
>
>
> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>
>

On VMS?
"Don't use it", is the easiest solution.

On 2023-04-25, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
> Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fsword007@gmail.com:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>>
>>
>
> On VMS?
> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.

I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
_server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).

Simon.

PS: Talking about Phillip, I haven't see him around here recently.
Hope he's ok.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 25/04/2023 13:09, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-04-25, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>> Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fsword007@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> On VMS?
>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>
> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).
>
> Simon.
>
> PS: Talking about Phillip, I haven't see him around here recently.
> Hope he's ok.
>

One of the main reasons is that most of us (including home users) like
to control IP addresses in a single place - the DHCP server

As I imagine all VMS users (except perhaps Phillip) will have other
systems it makes sense

--
Chris

On 4/25/2023 9:00 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 25/04/2023 13:09, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2023-04-25, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>> Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fsword007@gmail.com:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> On VMS?
>>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>>
>> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
>> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
>> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
>> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
>> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>> PS: Talking about Phillip, I haven't see him around here recently.
>> Hope he's ok.
>>
>
> One of the main reasons is that most of us (including home users) like to
> control IP addresses in a single place - the DHCP server
>
> As I imagine all VMS users (except perhaps Phillip) will have other systems it
> makes sense
>

At least one of us does control IP addresses, in a file listing all systems and
their IP and DECnet address. I'm a firm believer in fixed IP addresses. That's
just me. Guess I'm a "control freak" ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 25/04/2023 14:22, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/25/2023 9:00 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
>> On 25/04/2023 13:09, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2023-04-25, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>>> Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fsword007@gmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On VMS?
>>>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>>>
>>> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
>>> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
>>> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
>>> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
>>> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>> PS: Talking about Phillip, I haven't see him around here recently.
>>> Hope he's ok.
>>>
>>
>> One of the main reasons is that most of us (including home users) like to
>> control IP addresses in a single place - the DHCP server
>>
>> As I imagine all VMS users (except perhaps Phillip) will have other
>> systems it
>> makes sense
>>
>
> At least one of us does control IP addresses, in a file listing all
> systems and their IP and DECnet address.  I'm a firm believer in fixed
> IP addresses.  That's just me.  Guess I'm a "control freak" ...
>

I agree, and also do that. However apart from VMS (although it works
perfectly with TCPWare) I set them in my DHCP server which assigns the
fixed IP

I wonder when/if Process Software will get TCPWare running on X86. I
understand they are planning to get Multinet up

--
Chris

I do not know when Process plans to port Multinet and TCPware to OpenVMS x86. We are waiting for that.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Info-vax <info-vax-bounces@rbnsn.com> On Behalf Of Chris Townley via Info-vax
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 9:48 AM
To: info-vax@rbnsn.com
Cc: Chris Townley <news@cct-net.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Info-vax] DHCP problems on OpenVMS 9.2 x86

On 25/04/2023 14:22, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/25/2023 9:00 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
>> On 25/04/2023 13:09, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2023-04-25, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>>> Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fsword007@gmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On VMS?
>>>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>>>
>>> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
>>> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
>>> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
>>> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
>>> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>> PS: Talking about Phillip, I haven't see him around here recently.
>>> Hope he's ok.
>>>
>>
>> One of the main reasons is that most of us (including home users)
>> like to control IP addresses in a single place - the DHCP server
>>
>> As I imagine all VMS users (except perhaps Phillip) will have other
>> systems it makes sense
>>
>
> At least one of us does control IP addresses, in a file listing all
> systems and their IP and DECnet address. I'm a firm believer in fixed
> IP addresses. That's just me. Guess I'm a "control freak" ...
>

I agree, and also do that. However apart from VMS (although it works
perfectly with TCPWare) I set them in my DHCP server which assigns the
fixed IP

I wonder when/if Process Software will get TCPWare running on X86. I
understand they are planning to get Multinet up

--
Chris

_______________________________________________
Info-vax mailing list
Info-vax@rbnsn.com
http://rbnsn.com/mailman/listinfo/info-vax_rbnsn.com

On Tue, 2023-04-25 at 12:09 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On VMS?
> > "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>
> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).

I might install it on a laptop, just for jollies. Then working DHCP
will be a requirement.

DEC did have workstations many moons ago (Alpha).
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On 4/25/2023 9:22 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-04-25 at 12:09 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On VMS?
>>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>>
>> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
>> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
>> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
>> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
>> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).
>
> I might install it on a laptop, just for jollies. Then working DHCP
> will be a requirement.

My network preference is:
* one net n.n.n.* for normal traffic
- internet router on that net
- some addresses reserved, some addresses available for DHCP
- PC's and printers has fixed address
- phones, TV's, fridge, sprinkler etc. get address via DHCP
* one net m.m.m.* for servers (virtual or physical)
- my PC has an additional fixed address on that net
- each server has a fixed address

Arne

On 2023-04-25 12:09:31 +0000, Simon Clubley said:

> On 2023-04-25, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>> Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fsword007@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>>>
>>
>> On VMS?
>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.

Yes, and usually the best solution.

There was another thread a week ago discussing this same mess:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/9RPWo0gNj-k/m/upZoZK_KAAAJ

DHCP is a mess on OpenVMS, and long has been.

DHCP client works mostly well enough for the old VAX workstation
support where it originated, and not so well for server usage.

For the OpenVMS boxes, I'll set the MAC in the DHCP server and assign a
static address, and set the OpenVMS box to static. More work than
should be needed, but the IP address assignments are coordinated.

> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
> _server_ operating system.

That works fine with a modern operating system with integrated
networking, and with modern networking tools, and that have had some
experience running with DHCP-assigned addresses in production.

Particularly involving configurations with DHCP servers with integrated
DDNS, as servers need reliable reverse DNS for secure connections.

The current non-integrated design of IP networking on OpenVMS is well
past its prime, too. IP won. DECnet lost. ~Thirty years ago.

> About the only _possible_ use I can see for it is within a small
> home/office environment when VMS is being used as a workstation, not a
> server, and that's not exactly a place for VMS

DHCP client is commonly used for hosted servers, among other use cases.
Servers that are installed in these environments also typically boot up
with SSH access configured and available, avoiding the need for a
console serial line. Because IP and TLS and SSH are all viewed as
integrated capabilities of the operating system, not as add-ons and
optional features. The whole of TCPIP$CONFIG is just hilariously
overcomplicated, too. And yes, I'm still chuckling about that
SHOWDHC[P] command.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 4/25/2023 8:09 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-04-25, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>> Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fsword007@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> On VMS?
>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>
> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
> _server_ operating system.

One reason is more administrative than technical. It keeps all of an
organizations assigned addresses in one location. I know I did it.

> About the only _possible_ use I can see
> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).

Seems much less needed in the small home/office environment than in the
very large domain.

It's been more than ten years since I had a large network with VMS on
it but I seem to remember DHCP working fine with the VAX running VMS.
But then, I always ran Multinet and maybe that is the difference.

bill

On 4/25/2023 10:14 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/25/2023 9:22 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>> On Tue, 2023-04-25 at 12:09 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On VMS?
>>>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>>>
>>> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
>>> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
>>> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
>>> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
>>> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).
>>
>> I might install it on a laptop, just for jollies. Then working DHCP
>> will be a requirement.
>
> My network preference is:
> * one net n.n.n.* for normal traffic
>   - internet router on that net
>   - some addresses reserved, some addresses available for DHCP
>   - PC's and printers has fixed address
>   - phones, TV's, fridge, sprinkler etc. get address via DHCP
> * one net m.m.m.* for servers (virtual or physical)
>   - my PC has an additional fixed address on that net
>   - each server has a fixed address
>

DHCP and fixed addresses are not mutually exclusive.

bill

On 4/25/2023 9:57 AM, fsword007@gmail.com wrote:

> I agree, and also do that. However apart from VMS (although it works
> perfectly with TCPWare) I set them in my DHCP server which assigns the
> fixed IP
>
> I wonder when/if Process Software will get TCPWare running on X86. I
> understand they are planning to get Multinet up
>

Perhaps when all the native compilers they might need are available?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 4/25/2023 2:30 PM, bill wrote:
> On 4/25/2023 10:14 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/25/2023 9:22 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2023-04-25 at 12:09 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On VMS?
>>>>> "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
>>>> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
>>>> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
>>>> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
>>>> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).
>>>
>>> I might install it on a laptop, just for jollies. Then working DHCP
>>> will be a requirement.
>>
>> My network preference is:
>> * one net n.n.n.* for normal traffic
>>    - internet router on that net
>>    - some addresses reserved, some addresses available for DHCP
>>    - PC's and printers has fixed address
>>    - phones, TV's, fridge, sprinkler etc. get address via DHCP
>> * one net m.m.m.* for servers (virtual or physical)
>>    - my PC has an additional fixed address on that net
>>    - each server has a fixed address
>
> DHCP and fixed addresses are not mutually exclusive.

True.

But I find it easier to setup a fixed IP address in a server
than to configure the routers DHCP to always give a given address
a specific IP address.

Arne

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:09:35 AM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-04-25, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
> > Den 2023-04-25 kl. 01:41, skrev fswo...@gmail.com:
> >
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any solution for fixing DHCP client problems?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > On VMS?
> > "Don't use it", is the easiest solution.
> I would like to know what the obsession is with DHCP _client_ on a
> _server_ operating system. About the only _possible_ use I can see
> for it is within a small home/office environment when VMS is being
> used as a workstation, not a server, and that's not exactly a place
> for VMS (Phillip not withstanding :-)).
>
> Simon.
>
> PS: Talking about Phillip, I haven't see him around here recently.
> Hope he's ok.

6,000+ server OS environment here, many mixed platforms/architectures from wintel to z/OS to solaris to red hat systems. Everything that can be set DHCP is, with appropriate reservations and whatnot in play. Makes management/shifting/IPAM like tasks/cleanup/renumbering/migrations/corporate mergers&splits&acquistions/etc a breeze.

About the only thing that isn't DHCP is items that for whatever reason can't technically be or have some sort of compatibility issues, plus a few oh-crap last resort things (and network hardware, for obvious reasons).

On 2023-04-25 23:44:36 +0000, Gary Sparkes said:

> 6,000+ server OS environment here, many mixed platforms/architectures
> from wintel to z/OS to solaris to red hat systems. Everything that can
> be set DHCP is, with appropriate reservations and whatnot in play.
> Makes management/shifting/IPAM like
> tasks/cleanup/renumbering/migrations/corporate
> mergers&splits&acquistions/etc a breeze.
> About the only thing that isn't DHCP is items that for whatever reason
> can't technically be or have some sort of compatibility issues, plus a
> few oh-crap last resort things (and network hardware, for obvious
> reasons).

That's pretty typical. The DHCP server database either is the IP
address "registry", or is closely associated with the registry.

One of the lower-priority projects around here is migrating the DHCP
server configuration from a configuration that's being deprecated to
one that's not yet been deprecated.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

Den 2023-04-26 kl. 22:23, skrev Stephen Hoffman:
> On 2023-04-25 23:44:36 +0000, Gary Sparkes said:
>
>> 6,000+ server OS environment here, many mixed platforms/architectures
>> from wintel to z/OS to solaris to red hat systems. Everything that can be
>> set DHCP is, with appropriate reservations and whatnot in play. Makes
>> management/shifting/IPAM like
>> tasks/cleanup/renumbering/migrations/corporate
>> mergers&splits&acquistions/etc a breeze.
>> About the only thing that isn't DHCP is items that for whatever reason
>> can't technically be or have some sort of compatibility issues, plus a
>> few oh-crap last resort things (and network hardware, for obvious reasons).
>
> That's pretty typical.

Maybe not typical for someone testing a Community License at home...

For the few things that I have (one printer and sometimes one
terminal server or similar) I just config a fixed IP outside of
my router DHCP range. Way easier...