HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

6 participants
15562 discussions

by mark＠wickensonline.co.uk

13 years, 5 months

Multinet circuit costs

by bob＠jfcl.com

And now I'm seeing quite a bit more traffic on my router! Is that good or bad?? Bob

13 years, 5 months

Multinet circuit costs

by jeep＠scshome.net

And now I'm seeing quite a bit more traffic on my router! -Steve ________________________________ From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE on behalf of Bob Armstrong Sent: Thu 1/5/2012 11:14 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: RE: [HECnet] Multinet circuit costs where DECnet *might* get confused. Well, this is easy enough to test experimentally. I've disabled the redundant Multinet links on LEGATO, so in theory there should be no redundancy now at least as far as LEGATO goes. This means not only disabling the direct links from LEGATO to other bridge nodes (e.g. GORVAX, SG1) but _also_ the links from LEGATO to other nodes that in turn have Multinet links to bridge nodes (STUPI, FRUGAL, ROOSTA). In theory I suppose the latter step is excessive since we can assume that a two hop path would always cost more than a one hop path, but there's no guarantee of that. So just to be safe this absolutely eliminates redundant paths. I think that leaves me with area 54, CIERE, as the only machine that _only_ gets its connectivity thru LEGATO. That link I've left turned on. Now LEGATO sees the path to everything except CEIRE as being thru the bridge (QNA-1), which is what we'd expect. OpenVMS Network status for local node 2.1 LEGATO on 5-JAN-2012 08:11:19.43 Area Cost Hops Next Hop to Area 1 4 1 QNA-1 -> 1.300 CTAKAH 2 0 0 (Local) -> 2.1 LEGATO 3 7 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 4 4 1 QNA-1 -> 4.249 SLAVE 5 14 4 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 6 4 1 QNA-1 -> 6.1 STAR69 8 7 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 11 4 1 QNA-1 -> 11.2 MAISA 19 4 1 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 20 14 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 33 7 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 42 4 1 QNA-1 -> 42.1 CANADA 52 10 3 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 54 2 1 TCP-0-54 -> 54.59 CEIRE 59 7 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 Try your file copies again and see if anything changes... Bob

13 years, 5 months

Router for area 1

by jeep＠scshome.net

Works for me! -Steve ________________________________ From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE on behalf of Oleg Safiullin Sent: Thu 1/5/2012 11:35 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Router for area 1 This happens because when there are multiple routing nodes for the same area, DECnet uses the one with the highest address. The obvious solution would be for Johnny to renumber MIM as, say, 1.1023. Hmm. CTAKAH is set to lower router priority than MIM. I thought this is enough to tell that MIM is preffered router... There's no need for CTAKAH to be and area router, so I'll downgrade it to endnode...

13 years, 5 months

Router for area 1

by form＠pdp-11.org.ru

This happens because when there are multiple routing nodes for the same area, DECnet uses the one with the highest address. The obvious solution would be for Johnny to renumber MIM as, say, 1.1023. Hmm. CTAKAH is set to lower router priority than MIM. I thought this is enough to tell that MIM is preffered router... There's no need for CTAKAH to be and area router, so I'll downgrade it to endnode...

13 years, 5 months

Router for area 1

by bob＠jfcl.com

I wrote- OpenVMS Network status for local node 2.1 LEGATO on 5-JAN-2012 08:11:19.43 Area Cost Hops Next Hop to Area 1 4 1 QNA-1 -> 1.300 CTAKAH .... It bugs me, although I can't point at an actual problem that it causes, that the routing node for area 1 is seen as CTAKAH, rather than MIM. Since CTAKAH is not actually local to Uppsula (I think that's where MIM is) but is rather at the other end of yet another bridge, this means that any traffic for area one, no matter what its ultimate destination, has to make an extra round trip to Russia. This happens because when there are multiple routing nodes for the same area, DECnet uses the one with the highest address. The obvious solution would be for Johnny to renumber MIM as, say, 1.1023. Bob

13 years, 5 months

Multinet circuit costs

by md.benson＠gmail.com

On 5 Jan 2012, at 15:58, "Steve Davidson" <jeep at scshome.net> wrote: It could be the issue. If you are running Phase-IV then NETCONFIG will allow you to create the necessary account(s). You have a choice of creating a default DECnet account, or creating a FAL$SERVER account, or both. I have both contrary to what DEC's Inspect software would prefer. Thanks for the heads-up I'll sort that out this evening. What is the INFO.TXT you guys are talking about? Should I have one on STAR69 with my node list in? HECnet is a closed society, so I don't worry about it. Ha, wasn't a security issue as much as a clueless operator issue ;) -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson

13 years, 5 months

Multinet circuit costs

by bob＠jfcl.com

where DECnet *might* get confused. Well, this is easy enough to test experimentally. I've disabled the redundant Multinet links on LEGATO, so in theory there should be no redundancy now at least as far as LEGATO goes. This means not only disabling the direct links from LEGATO to other bridge nodes (e.g. GORVAX, SG1) but _also_ the links from LEGATO to other nodes that in turn have Multinet links to bridge nodes (STUPI, FRUGAL, ROOSTA). In theory I suppose the latter step is excessive since we can assume that a two hop path would always cost more than a one hop path, but there's no guarantee of that. So just to be safe this absolutely eliminates redundant paths. I think that leaves me with area 54, CIERE, as the only machine that _only_ gets its connectivity thru LEGATO. That link I've left turned on. Now LEGATO sees the path to everything except CEIRE as being thru the bridge (QNA-1), which is what we'd expect. OpenVMS Network status for local node 2.1 LEGATO on 5-JAN-2012 08:11:19.43 Area Cost Hops Next Hop to Area 1 4 1 QNA-1 -> 1.300 CTAKAH 2 0 0 (Local) -> 2.1 LEGATO 3 7 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 4 4 1 QNA-1 -> 4.249 SLAVE 5 14 4 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 6 4 1 QNA-1 -> 6.1 STAR69 8 7 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 11 4 1 QNA-1 -> 11.2 MAISA 19 4 1 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 20 14 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 33 7 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 42 4 1 QNA-1 -> 42.1 CANADA 52 10 3 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 54 2 1 TCP-0-54 -> 54.59 CEIRE 59 7 2 QNA-1 -> 19.41 SG1 Try your file copies again and see if anything changes... Bob

13 years, 5 months

Multinet circuit costs

by jeep＠scshome.net

It could be the issue. If you are running Phase-IV then NETCONFIG will allow you to create the necessary account(s). You have a choice of creating a default DECnet account, or creating a FAL$SERVER account, or both. I have both contrary to what DEC's Inspect software would prefer. HECnet is a closed society, so I don't worry about it. -Steve ________________________________ From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE on behalf of Mark Benson Sent: Thu 1/5/2012 10:55 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet circuit costs On 5 Jan 2012, at 15:40, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote: Yes I have problems wihile copying files from Legato and Star69 to Ozon. STAR69 has no public user account, and IIRC won't allow file access via DECnet without a username and password. I haven't got around to figuring out how to set up non-privileged file access in a safe directory yet. Could this be the issue? I really am a total newbie so STAR69's capabilities are the absolute minimum needed to do it's job at present. -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson

13 years, 5 months

Multinet circuit costs

by jeep＠scshome.net

The circuit costs here are set to 4 for LAN and 3 for tunnels. The issue may be that if a node (at the end of the chain so to speak) has 2 tunnel links of the same cost and that the final destination costs the same I could see where DECnet *might* get confused. Let's look at the following contrived example: FRUGAL:: connects to LEGATO:: - cost of 3 FRUGAL:: connects to SG1:: - cost of 3 LEGATO:: connects to GORVAX:: - cost of 3 SG1:: connects to GORVAX:: - cost of 3 Fred, on node FRUGAL:: tries to copy a (large) file from GORVAX:: to FRUGAL:: *may* see some issues. On the other hand if Fred chooses to favor SG1:: over LEGATO:: (cost wise) he should not see any problems: Ex: FRUGAL:: connects to LEGATO:: - cost of 3 FRUGAL:: connects to SG1:: - cost of 2 The route is guaranteed to be the same for the entire transaction. It will be (using poor man's routing to demonstrate) FRUGAL::SG1::GORVAX:: at a cost of 5, not FRUGAL::LEGATO::GORVAX:: at a cost of 6. -Steve ________________________________ From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE on behalf of hvlems at zonnet.nl Sent: Thu 1/5/2012 10:43 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet circuit costs PS I can copy to Legato alright. PPS I did check the netserver.log files and found nothing out of the order.

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