HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

15586 discussions

by jg＠jordi.guillaumes.name

El 01/07/2012, a les 17:06, Bob Armstrong va escriure: Jordi Guillaumes i Pons wrote: 7.78 BITXT2 0 93 30 UNA-0 -> 7.6 MBSERV 30 hops??? That is impressive.... Yes. More if you know that BITXT2 is a KLH-10 machine running inside a VBox machine running in the same host as BITXOO (the node from which I executed the command). To be honest, I have absolutely no clue about what's going on. At the same time the CPU usage of the host machine skyrocketed to 200% (100% of both cores). To add to the weidnesness, I run a java applications server (glassfish) there, and it was over 90% of CPU... when it should be idle. I guess I need to do a preventive IPL of that machine. Bob Jordi Guillaumes i Pons jg at jordi.guillaumes.name HECnet: BITXOV::JGUILLAUMES

13 years, 5 months

Area 7 and 8 funny...?

by bob＠jfcl.com

Jordi Guillaumes i Pons wrote: 7.78 BITXT2 0 93 30 UNA-0 -> 7.6 MBSERV 30 hops??? That is impressive.... Bob

13 years, 5 months

Area 7 and 8 funny...?

by jg＠jordi.guillaumes.name

El 01/07/2012, a les 16:55, Sampsa Laine va escriure: Johnny, I'm area 8 (have a bridge to you and multinet from gorvax to areas 19 and 2) - want me to bounce my side of the bridge? Sampsa On 1 Jul 2012, at 17:45, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2012-07-01 16:41, Johnny Billquist wrote: No communication seems to work to area 7 from me, and looking at the path, it would appear that from me to area 7 it is: me -> SG1(19.41) -> GORVAX(8.400) -> area 7. problem is... FYI: Doing some more experimentation right now, and these entries might be off in my bridge config if someone tries to contact these areas. This is really weird: $ sh net VAX/VMS Network status for local node 7.61 BITXOO on 1-JUL-2012 00:40:14.67 Area Cost Hops Next Hop to Area 1 10 3 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 2 6 2 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 3 6 2 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 7 0 0 (Local) -> 7.61 BITXOO 8 3 1 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 11 7 2 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 19 6 2 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 33 6 2 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 52 32 6 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 54 8 3 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 59 22 5 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX 62 10 3 UNA-0 -> 8.400 GORVAX Node Links Cost Hops Next Hop to Node 7.61 BITXOO 0 0 0 (Local) -> 7.61 BITXOO 7.6 MBSERV 0 3 1 UNA-0 -> 7.6 MBSERV 7.60 BITXOV 0 3 1 UNA-0 -> 7.60 BITXOV 7.71 BITXOR 0 3 1 UNA-0 -> 7.71 BITXOR 7.78 BITXT2 0 93 30 UNA-0 -> 7.6 MBSERV 7.80 BITXT1 0 3 1 UNA-0 -> 7.80 BITXT1 I'll recycle the bridge and tell you what happens then... Jordi Guillaumes i Pons jg at jordi.guillaumes.name HECnet: BITXOV::JGUILLAUMES

13 years, 5 months

Area 7 and 8 funny...?

by sampsa＠mac.com

Johnny, I'm area 8 (have a bridge to you and multinet from gorvax to areas 19 and 2) - want me to bounce my side of the bridge? Sampsa On 1 Jul 2012, at 17:45, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2012-07-01 16:41, Johnny Billquist wrote: There seems to be some problem with the bridge to area 7 and 8, as observed from my view. I have the adjacency constantly going down and up. Looking at the status of the areas, my next hop is constantly showing as SG1 (19.41). Now, SG1 has a separate connection to area 8, and communication to area 8 works. I assume that is because this separate path. No communication seems to work to area 7 from me, and looking at the path, it would appear that from me to area 7 it is: me -> SG1(19.41) -> GORVAX(8.400) -> area 7. Which is weird, since area 7 is (as far as I know) only connected to HECnet through the bridge. I know that area 7 used to work fine. Is it working for anyone else? Also, is connections out from 7 working? As for area 8, anyone have any ideas? I'm wondering if I should just shut down those two links for now, until we've figured out what the problem is... FYI: Doing some more experimentation right now, and these entries might be off in my bridge config if someone tries to contact these areas. 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

13 years, 5 months

Area 7 and 8 funny...?

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-07-01 16:41, Johnny Billquist wrote: There seems to be some problem with the bridge to area 7 and 8, as observed from my view. I have the adjacency constantly going down and up. Looking at the status of the areas, my next hop is constantly showing as SG1 (19.41). Now, SG1 has a separate connection to area 8, and communication to area 8 works. I assume that is because this separate path. No communication seems to work to area 7 from me, and looking at the path, it would appear that from me to area 7 it is: me -> SG1(19.41) -> GORVAX(8.400) -> area 7. Which is weird, since area 7 is (as far as I know) only connected to HECnet through the bridge. I know that area 7 used to work fine. Is it working for anyone else? Also, is connections out from 7 working? As for area 8, anyone have any ideas? I'm wondering if I should just shut down those two links for now, until we've figured out what the problem is... FYI: Doing some more experimentation right now, and these entries might be off in my bridge config if someone tries to contact these areas. 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

13 years, 5 months

Area 7 and 8 funny...?

by bqt＠softjar.se

There seems to be some problem with the bridge to area 7 and 8, as observed from my view. I have the adjacency constantly going down and up. Looking at the status of the areas, my next hop is constantly showing as SG1 (19.41). Now, SG1 has a separate connection to area 8, and communication to area 8 works. I assume that is because this separate path. No communication seems to work to area 7 from me, and looking at the path, it would appear that from me to area 7 it is: me -> SG1(19.41) -> GORVAX(8.400) -> area 7. Which is weird, since area 7 is (as far as I know) only connected to HECnet through the bridge. I know that area 7 used to work fine. Is it working for anyone else? Also, is connections out from 7 working? As for area 8, anyone have any ideas? I'm wondering if I should just shut down those two links for now, until we've figured out what the problem is... 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

13 years, 5 months

"Poor mans routing" and the Italian Hobbyist DECNET

by uusimaki＠exdecfinland.org

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

13 years, 5 months

"Poor mans routing" and the Italian Hobbyist DECNET

by wonko＠4amlunch.net

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

13 years, 5 months

"Poor mans routing" and the Italian Hobbyist DECNET

by HECNET＠beyondthepale.ie

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.

13 years, 5 months

"Poor mans routing" and the Italian Hobbyist DECNET

by uusimaki＠exdecfinland.org

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

13 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet