On 2013-01-12 16:11, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
I won't - which is why I thought the bridge users could add some meta-info to their INFO.TXTs to help me map how they are connected, for example.
And all other ethernets?
Johnny
sampsa
On 12 Jan 2013, at 17:02, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-01-12 15:53, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Johnny,
That's a graphic error, not a data collection one..
Ok. Since I don't know details on your implementation I'll have to take your word on that.
However, I still totally fail to see how you will ever be able to get the required information out from NCP, since NCP don't know (apart from not all nodes even talking NICE).
Johnny
sampsa
On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:35, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Yes. That is one additional complication. However, looking at the current output from sampsa, it looks as if ethernet and multinet links are mixed on the same segment as well.
--
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
--
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 2013-01-12 16:10, Peter Lothberg wrote:
If you ask me, I think this idea is dead. You cannot get a good
representation of how the topology really is from trying to walk nodes
using NCP.
(remove bridged ethernet that are not point-to-point with only 2
nodes).
Walk through the "known cir" and then "cir char" and build your own
connectivity tree with the metrics.
Plot all links
Apply DECnet routing rules and Colour the links that carry traffic
with the current metrics and/up/down condition, use two colours, one
for transmitt one for receive (as links can end up being simplex).
Well, it all depends on what you want to know. If you want to properly understand the topology you also want to represent the topology of bridged ethernet segments, as well as ethernets in general. NCP don't have any clue about this.
Sure, if you want to only have Multinet ptp links, then it's easy. But that would a rather severe restriction on the network technology.
We have ethernets (both bridged and local), as well as Cisco tunnels. Both of which walking with NCP fails on.
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
If you ask me, I think this idea is dead. You cannot get a good
representation of how the topology really is from trying to walk nodes
using NCP.
(remove bridged ethernet that are not point-to-point with only 2
nodes).
Walk through the "known cir" and then "cir char" and build your own
connectivity tree with the metrics.
Plot all links
Apply DECnet routing rules and Colour the links that carry traffic
with the current metrics and/up/down condition, use two colours, one
for transmitt one for receive (as links can end up being simplex).
..-P
I'm concurrently attacking it from three different directions: ssh,
snmp and mop remote console.
First one done wins. :)
You only have one alternative that works across all the cisco boxes in
HECnet, SNMP.
As I made a a image that works on 2500 with 8M flash and 16M ram,
there is not room for SSH....
-P
On 2013-01-12 15:53, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Johnny,
That's a graphic error, not a data collection one..
Ok. Since I don't know details on your implementation I'll have to take your word on that.
However, I still totally fail to see how you will ever be able to get the required information out from NCP, since NCP don't know (apart from not all nodes even talking NICE).
Johnny
sampsa
On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:35, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Yes. That is one additional complication. However, looking at the current output from sampsa, it looks as if ethernet and multinet links are mixed on the same segment as well.
--
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
Johnny,
That's a graphic error, not a data collection one..
sampsa
On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:35, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Yes. That is one additional complication. However, looking at the current output from sampsa, it looks as if ethernet and multinet links are mixed on the same segment as well.
On 2013-01-12 15:03, Brian Hechinger wrote:
It's not that there are no routers. It's the fact that from a DECnet point of view the bridge misrepresents distance. If there is a tunnel between sites (Multinet, Cisco, etc) it is very obvious there is separation. With the bridge it's impossible to tell if two nodes are physically next to each other or have an ocean in between them.
Yes. That is one additional complication. However, looking at the current output from sampsa, it looks as if ethernet and multinet links are mixed on the same segment as well.
I have some ideas for how to get bridge info but that's for later. There is plenty to do before we get to that point.
The only way I've come up with to represent this in a somewhat correct way is to give each network segment its own id. You can then list, for each machine, which segment(s) it is attached to. And you can also attach segments to each other. And then you can give costs to attachments.
But there is no way NCP can give you this information.
Johnny
-brian
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:58, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-01-12 14:46, 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: 12 January 2013 13:07
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Cc: sampsa at mac.com
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Mapping - getting close
On 2013-01-12 11:41, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Bit more accurate, if messier:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/hnmap3.svg
If you ask me, I think this idea is dead. You cannot get a good
representation
of how the topology really is from trying to walk nodes using NCP.
The above picture is a good example of the problems. Looking at it from my
point of view, MIM, PONDUS, ERSATZ, TARDIS, WXP and JOCKE are all
actually sitting one common ethernet. All the lines and seemingly relative
locations are just incorrect.
This time, it would appear as if SG1.1 were the bridged ethernet. But the
picture does it wrong anyway, since there are no multinet tunnels on the
bridge. That would suggest that SG1.1 is some kind of merging of several
actual networks, with no real corresponding entity at all.
Johnny
Isn't this because, in many cases, there are no routers between the physical
network segments?
There are definitely a router in between if we talk about the bridge and a multinet tunnel...
(Or any ethernet segment and a multinet tunnel...)
Johnny
Regards
Rob
sampsa
On 12 Jan 2013, at 10:45, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
That seems to be more in agreement with what A44RTR sees of Hecnet:
5 areas (9,42,52,59,61) are reachable thru dimma, 4 (18,19,20,33) via
SG1 and 3 (3,7,8) via Gorvax.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:07:54
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Mapping - getting close
On 11 Jan 2013, at 22:06, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 22:03, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2013, at 22:01, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 21:15, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2013, at 21:14, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-01-12 00:37, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Another with some overlap but less horizontal space:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/hnmap2.svg
Looks rather weird. I assume PONDUS.637 is actually an attempt at
the ethernet bridge, but it don't match reality much.
Also, totally missing some areas, like area 59.
And area 9.but Ciscos aren't handled yet. :p
I'm working on that. :)
What's the current plan for solving it?
I'm concurrently attacking it from three different directions: ssh,
snmp
and mop remote console.
My virtual cisco only supports SSH1. ;)
I probably misconfigured SNMP.
MOP remote console might work! How would I test again?
First one done wins. :)
I'd like to get all three working though for ultimate flexibility.
-brian
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff!
http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet
project.
--
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
--
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
--
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
It's not that there are no routers. It's the fact that from a DECnet point of view the bridge misrepresents distance. If there is a tunnel between sites (Multinet, Cisco, etc) it is very obvious there is separation. With the bridge it's impossible to tell if two nodes are physically next to each other or have an ocean in between them.
I have some ideas for how to get bridge info but that's for later. There is plenty to do before we get to that point.
-brian
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:58, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-01-12 14:46, 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: 12 January 2013 13:07
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Cc: sampsa at mac.com
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Mapping - getting close
On 2013-01-12 11:41, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Bit more accurate, if messier:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/hnmap3.svg
If you ask me, I think this idea is dead. You cannot get a good
representation
of how the topology really is from trying to walk nodes using NCP.
The above picture is a good example of the problems. Looking at it from my
point of view, MIM, PONDUS, ERSATZ, TARDIS, WXP and JOCKE are all
actually sitting one common ethernet. All the lines and seemingly relative
locations are just incorrect.
This time, it would appear as if SG1.1 were the bridged ethernet. But the
picture does it wrong anyway, since there are no multinet tunnels on the
bridge. That would suggest that SG1.1 is some kind of merging of several
actual networks, with no real corresponding entity at all.
Johnny
Isn't this because, in many cases, there are no routers between the physical
network segments?
There are definitely a router in between if we talk about the bridge and a multinet tunnel...
(Or any ethernet segment and a multinet tunnel...)
Johnny
Regards
Rob
sampsa
On 12 Jan 2013, at 10:45, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
That seems to be more in agreement with what A44RTR sees of Hecnet:
5 areas (9,42,52,59,61) are reachable thru dimma, 4 (18,19,20,33) via
SG1 and 3 (3,7,8) via Gorvax.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:07:54
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Mapping - getting close
On 11 Jan 2013, at 22:06, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 22:03, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2013, at 22:01, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 21:15, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2013, at 21:14, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-01-12 00:37, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Another with some overlap but less horizontal space:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/hnmap2.svg
Looks rather weird. I assume PONDUS.637 is actually an attempt at
the ethernet bridge, but it don't match reality much.
Also, totally missing some areas, like area 59.
And area 9.but Ciscos aren't handled yet. :p
I'm working on that. :)
What's the current plan for solving it?
I'm concurrently attacking it from three different directions: ssh,
snmp
and mop remote console.
My virtual cisco only supports SSH1. ;)
I probably misconfigured SNMP.
MOP remote console might work! How would I test again?
First one done wins. :)
I'd like to get all three working though for ultimate flexibility.
-brian
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff!
http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet
project.
--
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
--
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 2013-01-12 14:46, 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: 12 January 2013 13:07
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Cc: sampsa at mac.com
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Mapping - getting close
On 2013-01-12 11:41, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Bit more accurate, if messier:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/hnmap3.svg
If you ask me, I think this idea is dead. You cannot get a good
representation
of how the topology really is from trying to walk nodes using NCP.
The above picture is a good example of the problems. Looking at it from my
point of view, MIM, PONDUS, ERSATZ, TARDIS, WXP and JOCKE are all
actually sitting one common ethernet. All the lines and seemingly relative
locations are just incorrect.
This time, it would appear as if SG1.1 were the bridged ethernet. But the
picture does it wrong anyway, since there are no multinet tunnels on the
bridge. That would suggest that SG1.1 is some kind of merging of several
actual networks, with no real corresponding entity at all.
Johnny
Isn't this because, in many cases, there are no routers between the physical
network segments?
There are definitely a router in between if we talk about the bridge and a multinet tunnel...
(Or any ethernet segment and a multinet tunnel...)
Johnny
Regards
Rob
sampsa
On 12 Jan 2013, at 10:45, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
That seems to be more in agreement with what A44RTR sees of Hecnet:
5 areas (9,42,52,59,61) are reachable thru dimma, 4 (18,19,20,33) via
SG1 and 3 (3,7,8) via Gorvax.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:07:54
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Mapping - getting close
On 11 Jan 2013, at 22:06, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 22:03, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2013, at 22:01, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 21:15, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2013, at 21:14, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-01-12 00:37, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Another with some overlap but less horizontal space:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/hnmap2.svg
Looks rather weird. I assume PONDUS.637 is actually an attempt at
the ethernet bridge, but it don't match reality much.
Also, totally missing some areas, like area 59.
And area 9.but Ciscos aren't handled yet. :p
I'm working on that. :)
What's the current plan for solving it?
I'm concurrently attacking it from three different directions: ssh,
snmp
and mop remote console.
My virtual cisco only supports SSH1. ;)
I probably misconfigured SNMP.
MOP remote console might work! How would I test again?
First one done wins. :)
I'd like to get all three working though for ultimate flexibility.
-brian
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff!
http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet
project.
--
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
--
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
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE]
On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: 12 January 2013 13:07
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Cc: sampsa at mac.com
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Mapping - getting close
On 2013-01-12 11:41, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Bit more accurate, if messier:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/hnmap3.svg
If you ask me, I think this idea is dead. You cannot get a good
representation
of how the topology really is from trying to walk nodes using NCP.
The above picture is a good example of the problems. Looking at it from my
point of view, MIM, PONDUS, ERSATZ, TARDIS, WXP and JOCKE are all
actually sitting one common ethernet. All the lines and seemingly relative
locations are just incorrect.
This time, it would appear as if SG1.1 were the bridged ethernet. But the
picture does it wrong anyway, since there are no multinet tunnels on the
bridge. That would suggest that SG1.1 is some kind of merging of several
actual networks, with no real corresponding entity at all.
Johnny
Isn't this because, in many cases, there are no routers between the physical
network segments?
Regards
Rob
sampsa
On 12 Jan 2013, at 10:45, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
That seems to be more in agreement with what A44RTR sees of Hecnet:
5 areas (9,42,52,59,61) are reachable thru dimma, 4 (18,19,20,33) via
SG1 and 3 (3,7,8) via Gorvax.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:07:54
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Mapping - getting close
On 11 Jan 2013, at 22:06, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 22:03, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2013, at 22:01, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net>
wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 21:15, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2013, at 21:14, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-01-12 00:37, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
Another with some overlap but less horizontal space:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/hnmap2.svg
Looks rather weird. I assume PONDUS.637 is actually an attempt at
the ethernet bridge, but it don't match reality much.
Also, totally missing some areas, like area 59.
And area 9.but Ciscos aren't handled yet. :p
I'm working on that. :)
What's the current plan for solving it?
I'm concurrently attacking it from three different directions: ssh,
snmp
and mop remote console.
My virtual cisco only supports SSH1. ;)
I probably misconfigured SNMP.
MOP remote console might work! How would I test again?
First one done wins. :)
I'd like to get all three working though for ultimate flexibility.
-brian
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff!
http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet
project.
--
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
