HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

15559 discussions

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 08/06/2012 04:15 PM, Gregg Levine wrote: Oh and the gang left Thursday last. They are around Dave's place. No sign of 'em here.. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

12 years, 10 months

Area 6 Nodename changes

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 08/06/2012 03:26 AM, 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 :) Ahhh, nice!. :-) -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

12 years, 10 months

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by sampsa＠mac.com

Mobile operator called Saunalahti, they're a virtual operator on top of one of the two major Finnish operators, Elisa. Speeds are amazing, middle of the woods, I get 6/3 Mbps up down on a 3G dongle hooked to my Draytek router, and like 12/5 on my iPad. 13 euros a month, unlimited bandwidth and as much speed as your device can drive. Oh and they've got a 4G base station in town, like 7 km away, should get like 40+ Mbps there. Then again, Helsinki cable operators are now offering 300/20 Mbps as their to product :) Sampsa On 6 Aug 2012, at 23:15, Gregg Levine wrote: Hello! Sampsa all kidding aside who did you pick? I can think of several of the names but probably not available where you are. Oh and the gang left Thursday last. They are around Dave's place.

12 years, 10 months

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

On Aug 6, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Sampsa Laine 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.. Is there any protocol/port at all that you can get, inbound? Or are you limited to outbound connections only? For outbound, are there any significant limitations on what ports you can use? Ethernet tunneling over TCP seems reasonable enough, even though the TCP connection/ack machinery is pure overhead for this application. SSL could be used if security is needed -- is that important? For people who have port number limitations (censoring ISPs) I wonder if tunneling over HTTP should be defined. :-), sort of. And for things like SSL... I should have thought of this earlier, but it occurs to me that a "user mode router" could nicely and easily be implemented in Python. Lots of bits of algorithm get very simple then; for example, turning on SSL support takes only a couple of lines once you have a non-SSL protocol implementation. And of course it runs on lots of operating systems without any change being required, even Windows. And yes, it supports threading (very easily). paul

12 years, 10 months

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by gregg.drwho8＠gmail.com

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM, 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 Hello! Sampsa all kidding aside who did you pick? I can think of several of the names but probably not available where you are. Oh and the gang left Thursday last. They are around Dave's place. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

12 years, 10 months

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by wonko＠4amlunch.net

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

12 years, 10 months

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by sampsa＠mac.com

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

12 years, 10 months

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

12 years, 10 months

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

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

12 years, 10 months

TCP based bridge / router, what's the status?

by robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com

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

12 years, 10 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet