There's some issues connecting to Johnny unfortunately...
Sampsa
On 17 Jun 2010, at 22:12, Mark Wickens wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 22:06 +0100, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Yeah, I'll be around, my mobile is 07961 149465
On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:34, Mark Wickens wrote:
Hi Sampsa,
Are you going to be about tomorrow afternoon to try and setup a hecnet
bridge from the national museum of computing to your network? Let me
know one way or another, cheers. Mobile is 07917 653012.
Regards, Mark.
Is hecnet ok from your perspective at the moment?
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 22:06 +0100, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Yeah, I'll be around, my mobile is 07961 149465
On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:34, Mark Wickens wrote:
Hi Sampsa,
Are you going to be about tomorrow afternoon to try and setup a hecnet
bridge from the national museum of computing to your network? Let me
know one way or another, cheers. Mobile is 07917 653012.
Regards, Mark.
Is hecnet ok from your perspective at the moment?
Yeah, I'll be around, my mobile is 07961 149465
On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:34, Mark Wickens wrote:
Hi Sampsa,
Are you going to be about tomorrow afternoon to try and setup a hecnet
bridge from the national museum of computing to your network? Let me
know one way or another, cheers. Mobile is 07917 653012.
Regards, Mark.
Hi Sampsa,
Are you going to be about tomorrow afternoon to try and setup a hecnet
bridge from the national museum of computing to your network? Let me
know one way or another, cheers. Mobile is 07917 653012.
Regards, Mark.
Hi Chrissie,
If you are still on for me picking up your unwanted computers could you
please email me your address and telephone number.
I'll probably end up setting off here at about 9am so would be with you
late morning.
Regards, Mark.
Sampsa,
Once they connect they can do a traceroute, get their address and pass it along
to whomever at the other end. The configuration for either the bridge or
Multinet is trivial. You can preconfigure the bridge and comment it out until
a valid address is known, and with Multinet you can preconfigure the entry with
a bogus entry (address invalid only) and apply the change when you have it. A
quick reboot and you are all done.
Do you think that their address will change more than once during this short
event?
-Steve
Well static and static, but I mean there must be an IP address for
configuration of our side as the original MULTINET stack's UDP tunnel
does not to DNS lookups...
Sampsa
On 13 Jun 2010, at 16:07, Steve Davidson wrote:
Actually, for this short duration, who cares about a static
address. Fred and
I use dedicated VS4000/VLC's as Multinet tunnel routers. We reboot as
necessary and ignore everyone's complaints. SG1 actually has a
script that
deals with some of this automatically. If I have time today I may
even finish
it. It deals with the burden of changing the address entry in
Multinet and
reboots. Total turn-around is under 5 minutes, actually more like 3
minutes.
I noticed that Johnny has made changes to the bridge. I do not have
these
changes. My version is different than his to begin with. Fred and
I run
my version but it could probably use Johnny's fixes. I'm now
wondering if
some of the "surprises" we have been running into have to do with
these
"fixes". Do either of you know? I have not approached Johnny about
getting
these changes.
-Steve
Yup, that's correct.
Now we will need a static IP to make this work, unless we set up my
end on a Linux box - the MULTINET Linux port knows how to look up
hostnames, the original VMS one needs a static IP.
Steve is right about the bridge and LAT however, we COULD set up the
bridge as a backup and try the MULTINET tunnel as a primary method of
connection.
Sampsa
On 13 Jun 2010, at 07:50, Mark Wickens wrote:
I've been talking to Steve Davidson and it crossed my mind that if
we
use multinet to connect we won't need a separate unix box as we
wouldn't
require Johnny's bridge. Is that correct? Might be worth going
through
the motions if you have time, (a) to get the process documented and
(b)
to provide a good fallback strategy if option 1 using the bridge to
connect through to you doesn't work.
Regards, Mark.
Well static and static, but I mean there must be an IP address for configuration of our side as the original MULTINET stack's UDP tunnel does not to DNS lookups...
Sampsa
On 13 Jun 2010, at 16:07, Steve Davidson wrote:
Actually, for this short duration, who cares about a static address. Fred and
I use dedicated VS4000/VLC's as Multinet tunnel routers. We reboot as
necessary and ignore everyone's complaints. SG1 actually has a script that
deals with some of this automatically. If I have time today I may even finish
it. It deals with the burden of changing the address entry in Multinet and
reboots. Total turn-around is under 5 minutes, actually more like 3 minutes.
I noticed that Johnny has made changes to the bridge. I do not have these
changes. My version is different than his to begin with. Fred and I run
my version but it could probably use Johnny's fixes. I'm now wondering if
some of the "surprises" we have been running into have to do with these
"fixes". Do either of you know? I have not approached Johnny about getting
these changes.
-Steve
Yup, that's correct.
Now we will need a static IP to make this work, unless we set up my
end on a Linux box - the MULTINET Linux port knows how to look up
hostnames, the original VMS one needs a static IP.
Steve is right about the bridge and LAT however, we COULD set up the
bridge as a backup and try the MULTINET tunnel as a primary method of
connection.
Sampsa
On 13 Jun 2010, at 07:50, Mark Wickens wrote:
I've been talking to Steve Davidson and it crossed my mind that if we
use multinet to connect we won't need a separate unix box as we
wouldn't
require Johnny's bridge. Is that correct? Might be worth going through
the motions if you have time, (a) to get the process documented and
(b)
to provide a good fallback strategy if option 1 using the bridge to
connect through to you doesn't work.
Regards, Mark.
Actually, for this short duration, who cares about a static address. Fred and
I use dedicated VS4000/VLC's as Multinet tunnel routers. We reboot as
necessary and ignore everyone's complaints. SG1 actually has a script that
deals with some of this automatically. If I have time today I may even finish
it. It deals with the burden of changing the address entry in Multinet and
reboots. Total turn-around is under 5 minutes, actually more like 3 minutes.
I noticed that Johnny has made changes to the bridge. I do not have these
changes. My version is different than his to begin with. Fred and I run
my version but it could probably use Johnny's fixes. I'm now wondering if
some of the "surprises" we have been running into have to do with these
"fixes". Do either of you know? I have not approached Johnny about getting
these changes.
-Steve
Yup, that's correct.
Now we will need a static IP to make this work, unless we set up my
end on a Linux box - the MULTINET Linux port knows how to look up
hostnames, the original VMS one needs a static IP.
Steve is right about the bridge and LAT however, we COULD set up the
bridge as a backup and try the MULTINET tunnel as a primary method of
connection.
Sampsa
On 13 Jun 2010, at 07:50, Mark Wickens wrote:
I've been talking to Steve Davidson and it crossed my mind that if we
use multinet to connect we won't need a separate unix box as we
wouldn't
require Johnny's bridge. Is that correct? Might be worth going through
the motions if you have time, (a) to get the process documented and
(b)
to provide a good fallback strategy if option 1 using the bridge to
connect through to you doesn't work.
Regards, Mark.
Yup, that's correct.
Now we will need a static IP to make this work, unless we set up my end on a Linux box - the MULTINET Linux port knows how to look up hostnames, the original VMS one needs a static IP.
Steve is right about the bridge and LAT however, we COULD set up the bridge as a backup and try the MULTINET tunnel as a primary method of connection.
Sampsa
On 13 Jun 2010, at 07:50, Mark Wickens wrote:
I've been talking to Steve Davidson and it crossed my mind that if we
use multinet to connect we won't need a separate unix box as we wouldn't
require Johnny's bridge. Is that correct? Might be worth going through
the motions if you have time, (a) to get the process documented and (b)
to provide a good fallback strategy if option 1 using the bridge to
connect through to you doesn't work.
Regards, Mark.
