A possible option would be to setup an OpenVPN tunnel somewhere to go through. Maybe not pretty, but it'll work.
If you want to try that email me off list and we can set it up on my colo box.
-brian
On Aug 6, 2012, at 16:00, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> wrote:
On 6 Aug 2012, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Ah well, I could go on... Suffice to say that it's not because I'm opposed to the features that a TCP connection, or DNS resolution would give, but I prioritize something that I feel confident is working to features. And doing a proper solution with all these aspects is more work than I have cared to put into it. The bridge program is a hack.
As Paul mention, pthreads would probably be a good start if you want to do something more intelligent. You need to start thinking asynchronously.
My desire for this is basically because my ISP is NAT'd to hell - I have no way of getting UDP packets back to my network, as the ISP gives me a non-routable address.
Why go with this ISP? Well it's about 3x faster than the DSL I can get in the sticks over a 3G signal, with unlimited bandwidth and usage.
But sucks for HECnet..
Sampsa
On 6 Aug 2012, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Ah well, I could go on... Suffice to say that it's not because I'm opposed to the features that a TCP connection, or DNS resolution would give, but I prioritize something that I feel confident is working to features. And doing a proper solution with all these aspects is more work than I have cared to put into it. The bridge program is a hack.
As Paul mention, pthreads would probably be a good start if you want to do something more intelligent. You need to start thinking asynchronously.
My desire for this is basically because my ISP is NAT'd to hell - I have no way of getting UDP packets back to my network, as the ISP gives me a non-routable address.
Why go with this ISP? Well it's about 3x faster than the DSL I can get in the sticks over a 3G signal, with unlimited bandwidth and usage.
But sucks for HECnet..
Sampsa
On 2012-08-06 18:18, Jarratt RMA wrote:
Not sure I recall this particular conversation, but I am making (slow)
progress on a user mode DECnet router that runs on Windows and Linux and
which I intend to make friendly to those who do not have a fixed IP
address (like me). Not sure if that is what you were referring to.
I think there have been other discussions about tcp as a transport for traffic. I've personally not been very interested in this, since there are potential problems and issues with this. But it would in principle not be hard to convert the existing bridge program to use tcp instead if someone wanted to, but I won't be running that at my end...
Right now I have the Ethernet Initialization sublayer about done for
actual Ethernet connections. I still need to do an interface that will
interop with Johnny's bridge program, this should be easy when I get to
it,
Stupidly simple, in fact. You'll get full ethernet frames in UDP packets. Pass them in and parse them, just like any other ethernet packet. As for sending them out, once you have the full ethernet packet, send it over UDP instead of out on the ethernet interface.
when I do it I will add a periodic check that the IP address is
still valid by checking against DNS (you would need to be registered on
a dynamic DNS service like DynDNS). I believe Johnny does not do this in
the bridge because of the temporary halt in packet processing this
entails. Personally, this is a price I am willing to pay. I could make
it asynch I suppose, but it is harder to do this in a portable manner.
Correct. DNS resolution can take ages, especially when things gets wrong. Timeout are into minutes sometimes.
You really do not want to block operation on that.
Potential other problems if you go with tcp - a changed address means tearing down and reestablishing connections. You will have to make sure that the received can receive and process packets faster than a producer is sending them, or else you need to implement packet discarding, or else you'll get really weird problems because packets will appear, but way after they are considered dead by the sender. A typical example is if the sender is sitting on a gigabit ethernet, but the receiver is a lowly PDP-11 on a 10 Mbit ethernet segment. TCP never drops the packets. Instead you'll get into TCP flow control, which will block your writes or return with partial success. Another thing is that TCP is just a byte stream, so you need to somehow block/deblock your transmissions so that you deal with full packets at the receiving side. And if you implement packet drop, you might need to be able to resynch or drop data in ways that don't get only partial packets across.
One problem here is that by the time the sender becomes aware of a problem, you are already very deep into the problem. In order to make it work smoothly, you need to detect and drop packets on the receiving side. But that's also tricky, since how do you know on the receiving side that there is more data coming before you have received it...
Else you try to implement some signalling protocol outside of the data stream to tell this kind of information.
Ah well, I could go on... Suffice to say that it's not because I'm opposed to the features that a TCP connection, or DNS resolution would give, but I prioritize something that I feel confident is working to features. And doing a proper solution with all these aspects is more work than I have cared to put into it. The bridge program is a hack.
As Paul mention, pthreads would probably be a good start if you want to do something more intelligent. You need to start thinking asynchronously.
Johnny
Regards
Rob
On 6 August 2012 16:35, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com
<mailto:sampsa at mac.com>> wrote:
I remember there being some discussion about a bridge that would
work over TCP (only requiring the server to have a port forward /
static IP)..
What's the status on this? My ISP (a 3G network that's blazing fast
but short on IPs, which means I'm NAT'd on the outside of my
network, thus not portwards are possible).
Ideally I would like to just point at the server without them
knowing anything about my originating IP, perhaps with some form of
authentication.
Sampsa
On Aug 6, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Jarratt RMA wrote:
Not sure I recall this particular conversation, but I am making (slow) progress on a user mode DECnet router that runs on Windows and Linux and which I intend to make friendly to those who do not have a fixed IP address (like me). Not sure if that is what you were referring to.
Right now I have the Ethernet Initialization sublayer about done for actual Ethernet connections. I still need to do an interface that will interop with Johnny's bridge program, this should be easy when I get to it, when I do it I will add a periodic check that the IP address is still valid by checking against DNS (you would need to be registered on a dynamic DNS service like DynDNS). I believe Johnny does not do this in the bridge because of the temporary halt in packet processing this entails. Personally, this is a price I am willing to pay. I could make it asynch I suppose, but it is harder to do this in a portable manner.
I think that even Windows has pthreads, which is a good way to do async things easily.
paul
Not sure I recall this particular conversation, but I am making (slow) progress on a user mode DECnet router that runs on Windows and Linux and which I intend to make friendly to those who do not have a fixed IP address (like me). Not sure if that is what you were referring to.
Right now I have the Ethernet Initialization sublayer about done for actual Ethernet connections. I still need to do an interface that will interop with Johnny's bridge program, this should be easy when I get to it, when I do it I will add a periodic check that the IP address is still valid by checking against DNS (you would need to be registered on a dynamic DNS service like DynDNS). I believe Johnny does not do this in the bridge because of the temporary halt in packet processing this entails. Personally, this is a price I am willing to pay. I could make it asynch I suppose, but it is harder to do this in a portable manner.
Regards
Rob
On 6 August 2012 16:35, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> wrote:
I remember there being some discussion about a bridge that would work over TCP (only requiring the server to have a port forward / static IP)..
What's the status on this? My ISP (a 3G network that's blazing fast but short on IPs, which means I'm NAT'd on the outside of my network, thus not portwards are possible).
Ideally I would like to just point at the server without them knowing anything about my originating IP, perhaps with some form of authentication.
Sampsa
I remember there being some discussion about a bridge that would work over TCP (only requiring the server to have a port forward / static IP)..
What's the status on this? My ISP (a 3G network that's blazing fast but short on IPs, which means I'm NAT'd on the outside of my network, thus not portwards are possible).
Ideally I would like to just point at the server without them knowing anything about my originating IP, perhaps with some form of authentication.
Sampsa
On 2012-08-06 09:06, Dan Williams wrote:
On 17 July 2012 21:18, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2012-07-16 02:42, Dan Williams wrote:
Hi,
I don't know who is updating the records at the moment. But I now have
machines up and running, they should be up 24x7
51.1 slimer zx6000 VMS V8.3-1H1
51.2 Walter zx6000 VMS V8.3-1H1
51.3 dana simh VMS V7.3
51.4 gozer IBM 911-285 Debian Squeeze
51.5 ray 4000/90 VMS V7.3
By the way, I assume this means all previous definitions in area 51 are
invalid, and were deleted. Let me know if I was wrong. The old ones you had
conflicted with this list.
Johnny
Hi,
I don't know how I missed this email. Yes all old definitions are invalid.
Good.
What is the best machine to copy a current node list from ?
MIM::
Johnny
On 6 Aug 2012, at 08:06, Dan Williams wrote:
On 17 July 2012 21:18, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2012-07-16 02:42, Dan Williams wrote:
Hi,
I don't know who is updating the records at the moment. But I now have
machines up and running, they should be up 24x7
51.1 slimer zx6000 VMS V8.3-1H1
51.2 Walter zx6000 VMS V8.3-1H1
51.3 dana simh VMS V7.3
51.4 gozer IBM 911-285 Debian Squeeze
51.5 ray 4000/90 VMS V7.3
By the way, I assume this means all previous definitions in area 51 are
invalid, and were deleted. Let me know if I was wrong. The old ones you had
conflicted with this list.
Johnny
Hi,
I don't know how I missed this email. Yes all old definitions are invalid.
What is the best machine to copy a current node list from ?
1.13 (MIM) is usually the most up to date, I think.
--
Mark Benson
http://DECtec.info
Twitter: @DECtecInfo
HECnet: STAR69::MARK
Online Resource & Mailing List for DEC Enthusiasts.
On 5 Aug 2012, at 21:05, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 08/05/2012 01:02 PM, Mark Benson wrote:
The following nodes have changed name on Area 6 (not that anyone can see then right now ^_^)
6.51 DARMOK
6.54 JALAD
No Tinagra? ;)
That's the name of the cluster :)
--
Mark Benson
http://DECtec.info
Twitter: @DECtecInfo
HECnet: STAR69::MARK
Online Resource & Mailing List for DEC Enthusiasts.
On 17 July 2012 21:18, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2012-07-16 02:42, Dan Williams wrote:
Hi,
I don't know who is updating the records at the moment. But I now have
machines up and running, they should be up 24x7
51.1 slimer zx6000 VMS V8.3-1H1
51.2 Walter zx6000 VMS V8.3-1H1
51.3 dana simh VMS V7.3
51.4 gozer IBM 911-285 Debian Squeeze
51.5 ray 4000/90 VMS V7.3
By the way, I assume this means all previous definitions in area 51 are
invalid, and were deleted. Let me know if I was wrong. The old ones you had
conflicted with this list.
Johnny
Hi,
I don't know how I missed this email. Yes all old definitions are invalid.
What is the best machine to copy a current node list from ?
Dan
