Re: terminal without telnet

---In [email protected], <gtaylor@...> wrote :

>> That's a good idea. I didn't think of that. But I'm surprised that 
>> Hercules doesn't already have some sort of "raw tcp/ip" option so that 
>> I don't need a separate utility.

> I question what you actually mean by "raw TCP/IP".

A device that converts a "WRITE" CCW
into a TCP/IP "send" socket call. Ditto
for READ. No telnet negotiation done
when there is a socket connect either.

> My understanding is that there's something called the Network Virtual 
> Terminal that is the absolute minimum.

I'm not sure how that fits in. I looked it
up in Wikipedia but I'm still unsure.

> What would be the use case for true raw connections to Hercules that 
> others might want?

You can communicate to any unusual
device so long as it has a TCP/IP
connection.

> Re-reading your 2nd message in this thread, I get the impression that 
> you're wanting to connect PDOS/390 (?) running on Hercules emulated 
> mainframe to talk to a serial device. I'm speculating that said serial 
> device is a computer running pdpser that communicates with said serial 
> port. Is this remotely correct?

Yes, that's correct, but the serial port that
pdpser writes to is actually a TCP/IP
port because it's running under qemu.

> If it is, I'm thinking that there are other ways that Hercules and guest 
> OSs support better. I seem to recall reading that a 3174 can act as a 
> gateway between the (emulated) mainframe/OS and physical serial devices.

I'm not sure about that.

Anyway, no-one has named a non-telnet
device number/name I can define under
Hercules, so I'll assume it doesn't already
exist and add it to Hercules/380 so that I
can communicate with PDOS/386 running
pdpser. I'll see if I can add a "notelnet"
option to the 1052, and that can be the
basis of the raw TCP/IP.

BFN. Paul.