HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

3 participants
15591 discussions

by bqt＠softjar.se

Hi. Ian McLaughlin wrote: Here's where I read about hidden areas: http://labs.hoffmanlabs.com/node/271 Hmm. Interesting article, although slightly wrong or imprecise perhaps. What they refer to as "named objects" are actually numbered objects. Named objects are the ones which aren't predefined in any way, and are for random program communications. For instance, MAIL is never refered to by a name, but instead by it's number, which is 27. All "well known services" have specific numbers assigned to them. Basically, if you have a network like this: ME => ROUTER => YOU Where ME:: and YOU:: are in conflicting areas, and ROUTER:: is a level 1 router between two level 2 routers, you would get from me to you using: ROUTER::YOU:: I haven't tried it, but it might be worth an experiment. It's called poor mans routing (PMR), but I haven't seen it used for exactly that purpose before. However, I doubt it can be solved that easily. In the level 1 router in the middle, you cannot get access to all nodes on both sides, in case you have an overlap of areas on both sides. However, as Steve is trying it, as a hidden area 63, it becomes possible. The level one router will only have one area 63 it knows about. And nodes inside that area 63 will not know of any other area 63. So it should be doable. He just needs to keep the physical networks separate, and it should just work. Johnny Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Hmm. Such a setup will at best be weird. The level-1 router in the middle, how would it know which way to go when a packet to an area that exist on both sides? So it would basically only be "useful" when both sides only wanted to talk to the node/area in the middle, and only from nodes for which there were no conflicts. Or atleast that is my guess, since I haven't actually tried it. Johnny Ian McLaughlin wrote: Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote: What Johnny said... :-) -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE> <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE> Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-) Johnny gerry77 at mail.com <mailto:gerry77 at mail.com> <mailto:gerry77 at mail.com> wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8… -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=A6EBD192E06611DEA…

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by jeep＠scshome.net

They used to call that poor-mans-routing (PRM), and yes that is basically how it worked. ZKO has over 3000 machines and only had areas 2 and 19. The fix was hidden area support which in this case meant anything from either 63, or 62. I don't remember if they used areas 61 or 60. I managed machines in area 2, 19 and 63. My area 63 nodes were on satellites of clusters (in either area 2 or 19) that has DECnet aliases Worked very well. For those who were unfortunate to not be attached to a cluster PMR was the only way to either send mail, or SET HOST. -Steve From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Ian McLaughlin Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 18:56 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets Here's where I read about hidden areas: http://labs.hoffmanlabs.com/node/271 Basically, if you have a network like this: ME => ROUTER => YOU Where ME:: and YOU:: are in conflicting areas, and ROUTER:: is a level 1 router between two level 2 routers, you would get from me to you using: ROUTER::YOU:: I haven't tried it, but it might be worth an experiment. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Hmm. Such a setup will at best be weird. The level-1 router in the middle, how would it know which way to go when a packet to an area that exist on both sides? So it would basically only be "useful" when both sides only wanted to talk to the node/area in the middle, and only from nodes for which there were no conflicts. Or atleast that is my guess, since I haven't actually tried it. Johnny Ian McLaughlin wrote: Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote: What Johnny said... :-) -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE> Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-) Johnny gerry77 at mail.com <mailto:gerry77 at mail.com> wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8… -- 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 --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=A6EBD192E06611DEA…

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by ian＠platinum.net

On 2009-12-03, at 3:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Hmm. Such a setup will at best be weird. And building a hobbyist network using obsolete computers and obsolete protocols isn't weird? :) Ian.

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by ian＠platinum.net

Here's where I read about hidden areas: http://labs.hoffmanlabs.com/node/271 Basically, if you have a network like this: ME => ROUTER => YOU Where ME:: and YOU:: are in conflicting areas, and ROUTER:: is a level 1 router between two level 2 routers, you would get from me to you using: ROUTER::YOU:: I haven't tried it, but it might be worth an experiment. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Hmm. Such a setup will at best be weird. The level-1 router in the middle, how would it know which way to go when a packet to an area that exist on both sides? So it would basically only be "useful" when both sides only wanted to talk to the node/area in the middle, and only from nodes for which there were no conflicts. Or atleast that is my guess, since I haven't actually tried it. Johnny Ian McLaughlin wrote: Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote: What Johnny said... :-) -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE> Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-) Johnny gerry77 at mail.com <mailto:gerry77 at mail.com> wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8… -- 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 --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=A6EBD192E06611DEA…

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by bqt＠softjar.se

I think it makes sense to split out the different protocols in more detail. I wouldn't mind allowing MOP to all places, however, LAT is something I prefer to be a little more cautious with (just as an example). Johnny Steve Davidson wrote: Testing has been delayed for the LAVc configuration until this weekend - work has a habit of getting in the way of hobbies. In my version, I continue to use the same bridge.conf file except that I have added the following: [mop] [sca] [last] I did not want to force MOP or LAT on a site that only needed one of them so I split them out. This version has only one file with the appropriate sites/areas included or commented out to keep things cleaner/easier. Current testing is with two other sites. One is in the US via the Internet, the other is here (multiple static IP addresses are a wonderful thing). I would be interested to see what may be the differences in my version and the one you are using. -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of gerry77 at mail.com Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 16:38 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: [HECnet] Others DECnets (was: Boot VAX from Alpha host Infoserver?) On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- 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

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by bqt＠softjar.se

Hmm. Such a setup will at best be weird. The level-1 router in the middle, how would it know which way to go when a packet to an area that exist on both sides? So it would basically only be "useful" when both sides only wanted to talk to the node/area in the middle, and only from nodes for which there were no conflicts. Or atleast that is my guess, since I haven't actually tried it. Johnny Ian McLaughlin wrote: Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote: What Johnny said... :-) -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE> Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-) Johnny gerry77 at mail.com <mailto:gerry77 at mail.com> wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8… -- 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

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by jeep＠scshome.net

Ian, Are you talking about hidden area support? That is one of the reasons that I modified the bridge. Area 63 in HECnet is hidden (sort of...). At the moment it only exists at my end but... It turns out it is a bit more complicated than I had ever imagined. I did find some notes about how it was done in ZKO (Spitbrook Rd, Nashua, NH) but I'm a long way from making it actually happen. One component involves two different copies of the databases - but that is only the beginning. -Steve From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Ian McLaughlin Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 18:43 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote: What Johnny said... :-) -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-) Johnny gerry77 at mail.com wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- 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 --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8…

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by ian＠platinum.net

Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote: What Johnny said... :-) -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-) Johnny gerry77 at mail.com wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- 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 --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8…

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets

by jeep＠scshome.net

What Johnny said... :-) -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-) Johnny gerry77 at mail.com wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- 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

16 years, 2 months

Others DECnets (was: Boot VAX from Alpha host Infoserver?)

by jeep＠scshome.net

Testing has been delayed for the LAVc configuration until this weekend - work has a habit of getting in the way of hobbies. In my version, I continue to use the same bridge.conf file except that I have added the following: [mop] [sca] [last] I did not want to force MOP or LAT on a site that only needed one of them so I split them out. This version has only one file with the appropriate sites/areas included or commented out to keep things cleaner/easier. Current testing is with two other sites. One is in the US via the Internet, the other is here (multiple static IP addresses are a wonderful thing). I would be interested to see what may be the differences in my version and the one you are using. -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of gerry77 at mail.com Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 16:38 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: [HECnet] Others DECnets (was: Boot VAX from Alpha host Infoserver?) On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G.

16 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet