On 2011-12-26 15.45, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Yes, technically nothing will complain. But the network will be broken.
Right. So Chrissie can't make ROOSTA an area router, because area 6
already has one.
Well, you can have two area routers. Nothing wrong with that. You just have to make sure that the rules for connections are obeyed.
AFAIK, she has two options -
a) Move ROOSTA and all her nodes to a new area, and make ROOSTA an area
router. Of course, we collectively just told her to move from area 3 to 6,
so she might be grumpy about that.
b) Connect ROOSTA to HECnet via STAR69. Drop the LEGATO link (as you
said, it's pointless).
c) Have ROOSTA continue to be an area router, and make sure ROOSTA have a link to STAR69, and then any other areas we care to.
I suspect we have a broken setup somewhere...
Yes...
Nothing is, however, ever easy... :-)
Johnny
On 2011-12-26 15.41, Bob Armstrong wrote:
I can't talk to SG1 from MIM either, and thus nothing beyond it.
SG1 appears to be down (at least my connection to it isn't working,
either).
It sounds like we can declare SG1 down then, yes. :-)
And SG1 is currently acting as the next hop for a whole bunch of areas, as
seen from area 1.
Like what? Most of these nodes should have redundant paths (that's good,
remember :-) so it sounds like MIM's routing table is stale.
It don't really work that way always, unfortunately.
As far as MIM is concerned, SG1 is still up, no matter how defunct it is. It is still broadcasting routing information, and is still therefore considered in the route selection, and it wins for a bunch of areas.
If SG1 would just go away, another path would be chosen, yes, but SG1 has not gone away. It is just broken in some way making it appear to be ok from a routing point of view.
Somebody really should make a diagram of the HECnet topology...
Yes, please! It would be very nice.
Johnny
Right. So Chrissie can't make ROOSTA an area router, because area 6
already has one.
Wrong. You can have as many area routers in your area as needed and
then some.
--
Regards, Rok
Yes, technically nothing will complain. But the network will be broken.
Right. So Chrissie can't make ROOSTA an area router, because area 6
already has one.
AFAIK, she has two options -
a) Move ROOSTA and all her nodes to a new area, and make ROOSTA an area
router. Of course, we collectively just told her to move from area 3 to 6,
so she might be grumpy about that.
b) Connect ROOSTA to HECnet via STAR69. Drop the LEGATO link (as you
said, it's pointless).
I suspect we have a broken setup somewhere...
Yes...
Bob
I can't talk to SG1 from MIM either, and thus nothing beyond it.
SG1 appears to be down (at least my connection to it isn't working,
either).
And SG1 is currently acting as the next hop for a whole bunch of areas, as
seen from area 1.
Like what? Most of these nodes should have redundant paths (that's good,
remember :-) so it sounds like MIM's routing table is stale.
Somebody really should make a diagram of the HECnet topology...
Bob
On 2011-12-26 15.36, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Unless ROOSTA is an area router, that link makes no sense.
I won't argue with you about that... I can't fix it from here, though.
But does DECnet allow two different area routers, with different subsets of
reachable nodes, for the same area??
Yes, technically nothing will complain. But the network will be broken.
The problem/issue is that all area routers must have direct connections with all other area routers, with no intermediate level 1 routers, since that will cause the area routers to have a broken view of how the universe looks. Area routers share information with all other area routers, using special area routing messages that are sent along the links between the area routers. A level 1 router will not propagate that information, but just discard it, as it is unknown junk to a level 1 router.
I suspect we have a broken setup somewhere...
Johnny
On 2011-12-26 15.24, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2011-12-26 15.07, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Hmmm . LEGATO can t talk to ROOSTA ( remote node not currently
reachable ) even though there s a direct Multinet link to ROOSTA (and
yes, the link is UP and working).
I think the problem is that ROOSTA is in area 6, and the area router for
6 is STAR69. Trouble is, STAR69 doesn t have a path to ROOSTA and
doesn t know how to send it packets.
Unless ROOSTA is an area router, that link makes no sense. You cannot
have (usable) links between different areas unless both ends are area
routers...
It would appear something is more broken currently. I can't talk to SG1 from MIM either, and thus nothing beyond it. And SG1 is currently acting as the next hop for a whole bunch of areas, as seen from area 1.
Also, while I'm at it: NIKKEL - There is some issue with that machine too. Can others talk with it?
Johnny
Unless ROOSTA is an area router, that link makes no sense.
I won't argue with you about that... I can't fix it from here, though.
But does DECnet allow two different area routers, with different subsets of
reachable nodes, for the same area??
Bob
On 2011-12-26 15.07, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Hmmm . LEGATO can t talk to ROOSTA ( remote node not currently
reachable ) even though there s a direct Multinet link to ROOSTA (and
yes, the link is UP and working).
I think the problem is that ROOSTA is in area 6, and the area router for
6 is STAR69. Trouble is, STAR69 doesn t have a path to ROOSTA and
doesn t know how to send it packets.
Unless ROOSTA is an area router, that link makes no sense. You cannot have (usable) links between different areas unless both ends are area routers...
Johnny
Do you know which task/object NETPTH tries to talk to? Obviously MIM
don't have one running, but depending on what, it might be something
that I just have not set up. Is NML the object? What is NML?
It sends the same requests that you would send to a another node using NCP
to ask for example about the known circuits.
FWIW, it works for me -
$ ncp tell mim show act cir
Active Circuit Volatile Summary as of 26-DEC-2011 06:18:14
Circuit State Loopback Adjacent
Name Routing Node
UNA-0 on 11.2 (MAISA)
UNA-0 2.1 (LEGATO)
UNA-0 42.1 (CANADA)
UNA-0 1.300 (CTAKAH)
UNA-0 19.41 (SG1)
UNA-0 4.249 (SLAVE)
UNA-0 44.21 (NIKKEL)
UNA-0 1.301 (CTEPBA)
UNA-0 1.350 (ERSATZ)
It's pretty slow, though. Maybe the timeout in NETPTH is too short.
Bob
