On 30.6.2012 5:39, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On 6/29/2012 7:39 PM, Peter Coghlan wrote:
The Cisco DECnet configuration guide can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/decnet/configuration/guide/configuring_…
Thanks. I've downloaded it and had a look through it.
Let's assume the most usual conflict is at hand, where two different
ogranisations use area 1, but neither the networks nor the areas can be
merged, but the organisations need to communicate using DECnet.
Organisation A applies in the router the DECnet map for Organisation B
where the B's real area 1 is chosen to have a virtual area of 24 (which
is not used in either networks). Then B assignes a virtual area of 25 to
the A's real area 1. Then they configure their routers to use DECnet map
and the result looks like:
A Cisco ATG B
1.1 -----------------> 24.1 --------------------------------> 1.1
1.2 -----------------> 24.2 --------------------------------> 1.2
1.3 -----------------> 24.3 --------------------------------> 1.3
1.4 -----------------> 24.4 --------------------------------> 1.4
And in the opposite direction it looks like:
A
1.1 <------------------ 25.1 <-------------------------------- 1.1
1.2 <------------------ 25.2 <-------------------------------- 1.2
1.3 <------------------ 25.3 <-------------------------------- 1.3
1.4 <------------------ 25.4 <-------------------------------- 1.4
If there aren't any other conflicting areas, all other areas can be
routed normally.
That seems straightforward enough.
I could set up a test with you.
Thanks. However...
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is
required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single
mapping?
It didn't use to be, but the manual says it should be possible on some
release 12's but not all.
My poor old IGS has version 10.0(6) so it doesn't appear I would be
able to map
whole areas. The manual seems to say that no communication is possible
between
the two networks unless mapping entries exist for each of the hosts
that want
to communicate. This suggests I would need a mapping entry for every
host on
HECnet and every host on the other network. I think that would
probably be
too difficult to maintain and might not even fit in the NVRAM.
Maybe someone with a later version of IOS might like to try?
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
I could definitely give this a go. I'm running latest 12.4 on my 1841.
-brian
.
Please check your IOS if the Decnet map command is still included. Some Cisco document claimed that it has been removed from the latest versions.
Regards,
Kari
On 6/29/2012 7:39 PM, Peter Coghlan wrote:
The Cisco DECnet configuration guide can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/decnet/configuration/guide/configuring_…
Thanks. I've downloaded it and had a look through it.
Let's assume the most usual conflict is at hand, where two different
ogranisations use area 1, but neither the networks nor the areas can be
merged, but the organisations need to communicate using DECnet.
Organisation A applies in the router the DECnet map for Organisation B
where the B's real area 1 is chosen to have a virtual area of 24 (which
is not used in either networks). Then B assignes a virtual area of 25 to
the A's real area 1. Then they configure their routers to use DECnet map
and the result looks like:
A Cisco ATG B
1.1 -----------------> 24.1 --------------------------------> 1.1
1.2 -----------------> 24.2 --------------------------------> 1.2
1.3 -----------------> 24.3 --------------------------------> 1.3
1.4 -----------------> 24.4 --------------------------------> 1.4
And in the opposite direction it looks like:
A
1.1 <------------------ 25.1 <-------------------------------- 1.1
1.2 <------------------ 25.2 <-------------------------------- 1.2
1.3 <------------------ 25.3 <-------------------------------- 1.3
1.4 <------------------ 25.4 <-------------------------------- 1.4
If there aren't any other conflicting areas, all other areas can be
routed normally.
That seems straightforward enough.
I could set up a test with you.
Thanks. However...
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single mapping?
It didn't use to be, but the manual says it should be possible on some
release 12's but not all.
My poor old IGS has version 10.0(6) so it doesn't appear I would be able to map
whole areas. The manual seems to say that no communication is possible between
the two networks unless mapping entries exist for each of the hosts that want
to communicate. This suggests I would need a mapping entry for every host on
HECnet and every host on the other network. I think that would probably be
too difficult to maintain and might not even fit in the NVRAM.
Maybe someone with a later version of IOS might like to try?
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
I could definitely give this a go. I'm running latest 12.4 on my 1841.
-brian
The Cisco DECnet configuration guide can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/decnet/configuration/guide/configuring_…
Thanks. I've downloaded it and had a look through it.
Let's assume the most usual conflict is at hand, where two different
ogranisations use area 1, but neither the networks nor the areas can be
merged, but the organisations need to communicate using DECnet.
Organisation A applies in the router the DECnet map for Organisation B
where the B's real area 1 is chosen to have a virtual area of 24 (which
is not used in either networks). Then B assignes a virtual area of 25 to
the A's real area 1. Then they configure their routers to use DECnet map
and the result looks like:
A Cisco ATG B
1.1 -----------------> 24.1 --------------------------------> 1.1
1.2 -----------------> 24.2 --------------------------------> 1.2
1.3 -----------------> 24.3 --------------------------------> 1.3
1.4 -----------------> 24.4 --------------------------------> 1.4
And in the opposite direction it looks like:
A
1.1 <------------------ 25.1 <-------------------------------- 1.1
1.2 <------------------ 25.2 <-------------------------------- 1.2
1.3 <------------------ 25.3 <-------------------------------- 1.3
1.4 <------------------ 25.4 <-------------------------------- 1.4
If there aren't any other conflicting areas, all other areas can be
routed normally.
That seems straightforward enough.
I could set up a test with you.
Thanks. However...
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single mapping?
It didn't use to be, but the manual says it should be possible on some
release 12's but not all.
My poor old IGS has version 10.0(6) so it doesn't appear I would be able to map
whole areas. The manual seems to say that no communication is possible between
the two networks unless mapping entries exist for each of the hosts that want
to communicate. This suggests I would need a mapping entry for every host on
HECnet and every host on the other network. I think that would probably be
too difficult to maintain and might not even fit in the NVRAM.
Maybe someone with a later version of IOS might like to try?
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
On 29.6.2012 12:31, Peter Coghlan wrote:
Kari wrote:
On 28.6.2012 23:28, Rok Vidmar wrote:
I don't think that will work.
How about a bridge translating HECnet's area 1 to an
area unused in Italian net and translating Italian area 1
to an unused area in HECnet?
--
Regards, Rok
.
That's exactly what an ATG (Address Translation Gateway) does. Although
I haven't used it over TCP/IP (Internet in this case). Maybe it would
work if it is configured in either end of a GRE tunnel. Could be worth
testing.
I can't find my Cisco manual
The Cisco DECnet configuration guide can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/decnet/configuration/guide/configuring_…
but I've gone looking for suitable configuration
commands on my router and I found:
decnet map N.H <0-3> N.H Establish an ATG address mapping
The first N.H is described as "Local virtual DECnet address"
The number between 0 and 3 is the "Remote ATG network number"
The second N.H is described as "Remote real DECnet address"
I also find that it is possible to apply:
decnet <0-3> ATG network number
to each interface and it can also be applied globally. Presumably my current
decnet configuration defaults everything to being in ATG network number 0.
Can you describe how this can be used to map addresses between conflicting
areas?
Let's assume the most usual conflict is at hand, where two different ogranisations use area 1, but neither the networks nor the areas can be merged, but the organisations need to communicate using DECnet.
Organisation A applies in the router the DECnet map for Organisation B where the B's real area 1 is chosen to have a virtual area of 24 (which is not used in either networks). Then B assignes a virtual area of 25 to the A's real area 1. Then they configure their routers to use DECnet map and the result looks like:
A Cisco ATG B
1.1 -----------------> 24.1 --------------------------------> 1.1
1.2 -----------------> 24.2 --------------------------------> 1.2
1.3 -----------------> 24.3 --------------------------------> 1.3
1.4 -----------------> 24.4 --------------------------------> 1.4
And in the opposite direction it looks like:
A
1.1 <------------------ 25.1 <-------------------------------- 1.1
1.2 <------------------ 25.2 <-------------------------------- 1.2
1.3 <------------------ 25.3 <-------------------------------- 1.3
1.4 <------------------ 25.4 <-------------------------------- 1.4
If there aren't any other conflicting areas, all other areas can be routed normally.
Alternatively, if someone on the Italian network or a test network isolated
from hecnet is willing to set up another tunnel to me, I am willing to have a
go and see if I can get it to work.
I could set up a test with you.
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single mapping?
It didn't use to be, but the manual says it should be possible on some release 12's but not all.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
.
Regards,
Kari
On 2012-06-29 22:49, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I just noticed that something is acting up on the bridge. I have
adjacency coming and going, and dumping the bridge hashes, I can see
connections moving around in weird ways. I'm trying to pinpoint where
the problem is right now...
Expect some possible unstability on the bridge at the moment.
Looks like things calmed down again. Not sure what was going on there for a short while.
Anyway, nothing to report now. Things are nice and stable once more.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
I just noticed that something is acting up on the bridge. I have adjacency coming and going, and dumping the bridge hashes, I can see connections moving around in weird ways. I'm trying to pinpoint where the problem is right now...
Expect some possible unstability on the bridge at the moment.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Kari wrote:
On 28.6.2012 23:28, Rok Vidmar wrote:
I don't think that will work.
How about a bridge translating HECnet's area 1 to an
area unused in Italian net and translating Italian area 1
to an unused area in HECnet?
--
Regards, Rok
.
That's exactly what an ATG (Address Translation Gateway) does. Although
I haven't used it over TCP/IP (Internet in this case). Maybe it would
work if it is configured in either end of a GRE tunnel. Could be worth
testing.
I can't find my Cisco manual but I've gone looking for suitable configuration
commands on my router and I found:
decnet map N.H <0-3> N.H Establish an ATG address mapping
The first N.H is described as "Local virtual DECnet address"
The number between 0 and 3 is the "Remote ATG network number"
The second N.H is described as "Remote real DECnet address"
I also find that it is possible to apply:
decnet <0-3> ATG network number
to each interface and it can also be applied globally. Presumably my current
decnet configuration defaults everything to being in ATG network number 0.
Can you describe how this can be used to map addresses between conflicting
areas?
Alternatively, if someone on the Italian network or a test network isolated
from hecnet is willing to set up another tunnel to me, I am willing to have a
go and see if I can get it to work.
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single mapping?
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
On 2012-06-29 01:37, Steve Davidson wrote:
PMR works great with hidden areas! If the Italian network went to a
hidden network, then we could designate a router to deal with the
connection between the two of them. In our current scheme they would
have to go to either area 63 (currently used for this kind of thing - on
a site-by-site basis) or free up area 62 and define max area to be
something less then whichever area number we chose.
If we get them to renumber, they might as well renumber to any "public" area...
Johnny
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
[mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Sampsa Laine
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 09:57
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: [HECnet] "Poor mans routing" and the Italian Hobbyist DECNET
Guys,
Do you think it would be possible to have a host that would
somehow bridge HECnet with the Italian DECNET and then use
the "poor mans routing" (i.e. HOST1::HOST2::<object) to pass
e.g. mail across our two networks?
I have no idea how this works in practice, but just throwing
the idea out there. From what I understood is that the
Italians use many of the same nets / nodes as us (mainly
network 1) which would make a network merger impractical.
Sampsa
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 2012-06-28 22:28, Rok Vidmar wrote:
I don't think that will work.
How about a bridge translating HECnet's area 1 to an
area unused in Italian net and translating Italian area 1
to an unused area in HECnet?
Hmm. Problem is that node numbers travel around in so many places in packets that it will be rather difficult to get them all. You have the MAC addresses, but also routing vectors for both level one and level 2, and in addition there are probably other places where node numbers occur in different protocols. They definitely occur in several places in the NICE protocol.
If someone wants to try to do this, I'll happily cheer him on, but I fear it will never work correctly...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
What I should have said was...
They could go that way, but if they are going to change their area number anyway, then why not pick one that is unused and link to that. A Multinet tunnel would be perfect in this case.
-Steve
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Sampsa Laine
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 19:36
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] "Poor mans routing" and the Italian Hobbyist DECNET
On 29 Jun 2012, at 02:37, Steve Davidson wrote:
PMR works great with hidden areas! If the Italian network went to a
hidden network, then we could designate a router to deal with the
connection between the two of them. In our current scheme they would
have to go to either area 63 (currently used for this kind of thing - on
a site-by-site basis) or free up area 62 and define max area to be
something less then whichever area number we chose.
-Steve
So now we just need to get them to buy into this nutty scheme, right?
Sampsa
