-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-
hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Brian Hechinger
Sent: 05 June 2012 18:36
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::
On 6/5/2012 12:53 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-
hecnet at Update.UU.SE]
On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: 04 June 2012 23:17
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::
FYI - Update now have a Cisco box, which will be setup within a few
days
to
be able to route DECnet over IP, so that will become another options
to
hook
into HECnet at the Update site.
For people who don't need LAT and have a Cisco box, this is way
better
than
the bridge program.
(If you really want LAT with other parts of HECnet, then there is no
alternative to the bridge...)
Johnny
I assume you are using GRE on the Cisco box. I am not an expert in
this stuff so pardon the na ve question but, what is it about Cisco
that makes it better than the bridge? After all aren't they really doing
the
same thing?
Is it just that you don t need a server running the bridge (could use
a Raspberry Pi for that now) or is it the use of GRE? From a skim of
RFC 2784 and 2890 GRE doesn't look too complicated, perhaps the bridge
could be changed to implement GRE if that helps in some way.
I don't know much about "professional" routers and Cisco stuff in
particular. If there are advantages to using a Cisco router, what
should I be looking for if I wanted to pick up something cheap on
EBay? Could this work in a domestic environment with an ISP that gives
out dynamic IP addresses?
The cisco isn't bridging traffic across the GRE link it's doing actual
DECnet
routing.
It's closer in function to a Multinet tunnel.
-brian
Forgive my ignorance, but when you say "actual DECnet routing", it must be
transporting it over something, what is that something? I assume it is IP,
in which case it would still need to encapsulate the DECnet in IP wouldn't
it? Have I misunderstood something here?
Regards
Rob
On 06/05/2012 12:53 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote:
I assume you are using GRE on the Cisco box. I am not an expert in this
stuff so pardon the na ve question but, what is it about Cisco that makes it
better than the bridge? After all aren't they really doing the same thing?
They are practically indestructible, and many times there's already
one sitting there doing something else.
Is it just that you don t need a server running the bridge (could use a
Raspberry Pi for that now) or is it the use of GRE? From a skim of RFC 2784
and 2890 GRE doesn't look too complicated, perhaps the bridge could be
changed to implement GRE if that helps in some way.
Pretty much all OSs implement GRE natively nowadays; you can terminate
a GRE tunnel on most any modern OS regardless of what system is at the
other end.
I don't know much about "professional" routers and Cisco stuff in
particular. If there are advantages to using a Cisco router, what should I
be looking for if I wanted to pick up something cheap on EBay?
Most any Cisco router will do the trick, but the oldest you'd probably
want to use for something like this would be a 2500 series. They can be
had all day long for $10-20/ea, they pull very little power, and their
software is...erm, "available" if you know what I mean.
There's a lot of Cisco expertise on this list; you'll have all the
help you need here should you decide to go that route.
Could this
work in a domestic environment with an ISP that gives out dynamic IP
addresses?
Of course.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 06/05/2012 11:32 AM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
...
I am looking at trying to mount an external hard drive or SSD to handle the disk images instead of the SD card. For some ^$%^$% reason you can't mount a disk as a user in Linux (I might be missing something, admittedly) like you can in RSX and VMS (again, more demonstration that UNIX sucks ;)) so I have to futz about as root to do that.
You can set that to be allowed with the "user" option, see "man fstab". It defaults to not allowed, which is the correct security answer. (I would assume the same is true in DEC operating systems that have protection mechanisms... it certainly is in RSTS.)
That means you have to enable it for each volume? That's a pain when you are dealing with dynamic volume devices and USB. In VMS this kind of stuff is decided on the USER account, not on the OS setup. I can see why people love VMS so much now...
I believe you can do it for USB across the board, but I'm not sure of the details.
You can. This is done through the udev subsystem. It involves
writing a "udev rule" which matches the device (or device class) in
question, and then taking some action (which can be set permissions,
create a symlink, run a shell script, etc etc) when that rule is matched.
It's very flexible. Perhaps sometimes TOO flexible, but it gets the
job done in a clean way.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 06/05/2012 11:03 AM, Mark Benson wrote:
I am looking at trying to mount an external hard drive or SSD to
handle the disk images instead of the SD card. For some ^$%^$%
reason you can't mount a disk as a user in Linux (I might be
missing something, admittedly) like you can in RSX and VMS
(again, more demonstration that UNIX sucks ;)) so I have to futz
about as root to do that.
You can set that to be allowed with the "user" option, see "man
fstab". It defaults to not allowed, which is the correct security
answer. (I would assume the same is true in DEC operating systems
that have protection mechanisms... it certainly is in RSTS.)
That means you have to enable it for each volume? That's a pain when
you are dealing with dynamic volume devices and USB. In VMS this kind
of stuff is decided on the USER account, not on the OS setup. I can
see why people love VMS so much now...
UNIX "sucks" because you don't know how to use it, and its design
differs from the OS that you DO know how to use? Interesting logic. ;)
*poke poke*
The specifics of how to accomplish this does, however, differ from
UNIX to UNIX. Under any modern-ish Linux system for example, this is
done automatically upon device insertion by a combination of udev, dbus,
and gvfs. It Just Works, I've done it five or six times since lunch
today. Of course you have to be logged into a "desktop" session in
order for it to work, but 99% of the time, that's what's going on.
If you want to do it a different way, say when nobody is logged in,
this is easily accomplished with a udev rule that matches the device
when it's inserted, and takes some action, in this case mounts the
filesystem. If you need to do that, let me know, and I may be able to help.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 6/5/2012 12:53 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-
hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: 04 June 2012 23:17
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::
FYI - Update now have a Cisco box, which will be setup within a few days
to
be able to route DECnet over IP, so that will become another options to
hook
into HECnet at the Update site.
For people who don't need LAT and have a Cisco box, this is way better
than
the bridge program.
(If you really want LAT with other parts of HECnet, then there is no
alternative to the bridge...)
Johnny
I assume you are using GRE on the Cisco box. I am not an expert in this
stuff so pardon the na ve question but, what is it about Cisco that makes it
better than the bridge? After all aren't they really doing the same thing?
Is it just that you don t need a server running the bridge (could use a
Raspberry Pi for that now) or is it the use of GRE? From a skim of RFC 2784
and 2890 GRE doesn't look too complicated, perhaps the bridge could be
changed to implement GRE if that helps in some way.
I don't know much about "professional" routers and Cisco stuff in
particular. If there are advantages to using a Cisco router, what should I
be looking for if I wanted to pick up something cheap on EBay? Could this
work in a domestic environment with an ISP that gives out dynamic IP
addresses?
The cisco isn't bridging traffic across the GRE link it's doing actual DECnet routing.
It's closer in function to a Multinet tunnel.
-brian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-
hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: 04 June 2012 23:17
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::
FYI - Update now have a Cisco box, which will be setup within a few days
to
be able to route DECnet over IP, so that will become another options to
hook
into HECnet at the Update site.
For people who don't need LAT and have a Cisco box, this is way better
than
the bridge program.
(If you really want LAT with other parts of HECnet, then there is no
alternative to the bridge...)
Johnny
I assume you are using GRE on the Cisco box. I am not an expert in this
stuff so pardon the na ve question but, what is it about Cisco that makes it
better than the bridge? After all aren't they really doing the same thing?
Is it just that you don t need a server running the bridge (could use a
Raspberry Pi for that now) or is it the use of GRE? From a skim of RFC 2784
and 2890 GRE doesn't look too complicated, perhaps the bridge could be
changed to implement GRE if that helps in some way.
I don't know much about "professional" routers and Cisco stuff in
particular. If there are advantages to using a Cisco router, what should I
be looking for if I wanted to pick up something cheap on EBay? Could this
work in a domestic environment with an ISP that gives out dynamic IP
addresses?
Regards
Rob
On 05/06/2012 16:19, Mark Benson wrote:
Having lost my Multinet tunnel to Steve's SG1 node a while back I have been trying sporadically to fix it with no luck. I decided hang it today and went back to using the bridge program (which works fine) so I am happy to say Area 6 is back on HECnet.
There are a few caveats however...
If Chrissie still wants machines on HECnet she need to move the off Area 6. I can no longer offer remote area routing for other people without significant extra work and testing. As I also cannot guarantee my uptime at the moment as I am on a very scrappy ADSL service I think it is for the best if the nodes outside my LAN are relocated. I am sorry for this inconvenience.
Leave that with me, I'll decide what I want to do. All of my DECnet
systems are down at the moment because of licences so I'm not in any
rush to get them back just yet anyway :/
Chrissie
As indicated by my comment above, access to my network area will as ever be sporadic, depending on power-cuts, ADSL outages and also might be disturbed by some work on my main server, which houses STAR69 and my bridge.
On 2012-06-05 17:47, Mark Benson wrote:
NODE LIST AS FOLLOWS:
6.1 STAR69 (Area IV)
*6.2 QUIGON
*6.14
*6.15 PIVAX1
*Denotes part-time node (i.e. it's not on all the time)
PIVAX will be up a good lot of the time, although I take it down occasionally to test RasPi stuff.
So, who is 6.14? Care to present us?
(6.15 registered)
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
NODE LIST AS FOLLOWS:
6.1 STAR69 (Area IV)
*6.2 QUIGON
*6.14
*6.15 PIVAX1
*Denotes part-time node (i.e. it's not on all the time)
PIVAX will be up a good lot of the time, although I take it down occasionally to test RasPi stuff.
--
Mark Benson
http://DECtec.info
Twitter: @DECtecInfo
HECnet: STAR69::MARK
Online Resource & Mailing List for DEC Enthusiasts.
On 2012-06-05 16:50, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:29 AM, Mark Benson wrote:
...
I am looking at trying to mount an external hard drive or SSD to handle the disk images instead of the SD card. For some ^$%^$% reason you can't mount a disk as a user in Linux (I might be missing something, admittedly) like you can in RSX and VMS (again, more demonstration that UNIX sucks ;)) so I have to futz about as root to do that.
You can set that to be allowed with the "user" option, see "man fstab". It defaults to not allowed, which is the correct security answer. (I would assume the same is true in DEC operating systems that have protection mechanisms... it certainly is in RSTS.)
Anyone can mount a disk in RSX, assuming you "own" the disk, which basically boils down to knowing the disk label, and have the owner field of the disk structure allowing you.
Same for tapes...
It works nothing like in Unix.
Johnny
