HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

15556 discussions

by mark＠wickensonline.co.uk

I'm not totally clear on your setup. You have two interfaces, eth0 and eth2. I think I got that. And the bridge program is using eth0 for it's bridge. But how does your ethernet looks like? Is both eth0 and eth2 connected to the same physical network? Is the router on that same segment as well? Both interfaces are on the same segment as the router. What sessions are you seeing on the router? On the router I see the following sessions: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Private IP :Port #Pseudo Port Peer IP :Port Ifno Status ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 192.168.1.126 4711 4711 130.238.19.25 4711 3 0 192.168.1.127 4711 4711 130.238.19.25 4711 3 0 Where 192.168.1.126 is eth0 and 192.168.1.127 is eth2 And what did the routing table on the machine running the bridge look like, if you have two interfaces? No idea on this one. The bridge program does not try to do anything clever with the UDP packets, so they will be sent on any interface, based on your routing table. It might sound as if your router/NAT was pointing at the IP address of eth0, but the default entry of the routing table on your machine would be using eth2. But this is all wild guessing right now... OK, that probably explains it. I thought the bridge was tied to that particular interface. It's worth pointing out that what I'm doing it probably daft - the 2nd card was installed to use for a SIMH instance, so I should probably de-configure it from an OS point of view.

12 years, 8 months

Node 4.249

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

Maybe the thing to do is to turn on both interfaces -- that will give you a dual-link end node, which is something DECnet handles just fine. In fact, I've always argued that DECnet handles multiple connections to the same LAN much better than IP ever did, mostly because it addresses nodes rather than networks or interfaces. paul On Aug 28, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Mark Benson wrote: I tried to run a similar setup and found that Debian/Ubuntu's 'network-manager' process makes a really horrific mess of managing 2 interfaces. I ripped it out of Debian and used file entries in /etc/network/interfaces and /etc/resolv.conf I have no idea if Ubuntu will spit it's brain out if you try that on 12.04 as it's ver dependent on it in the GUI. -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson On 28 Aug 2012, at 13:37, Mark Wickens <mark at wickensonline.co.uk> wrote: I think I've found it. My HP Microserver running Ubuntu 12.04 has two network cards in: eth0 and eth2.

12 years, 8 months

Node 4.249

by md.benson＠gmail.com

I tried to run a similar setup and found that Debian/Ubuntu's 'network-manager' process makes a really horrific mess of managing 2 interfaces. I ripped it out of Debian and used file entries in /etc/network/interfaces and /etc/resolv.conf I have no idea if Ubuntu will spit it's brain out if you try that on 12.04 as it's ver dependent on it in the GUI. -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson On 28 Aug 2012, at 13:37, Mark Wickens <mark at wickensonline.co.uk> wrote: I think I've found it. My HP Microserver running Ubuntu 12.04 has two network cards in: eth0 and eth2.

12 years, 8 months

Node 4.249

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-08-28 14:37, Mark Wickens wrote: I think I've found it. My HP Microserver running Ubuntu 12.04 has two network cards in: eth0 and eth2. I run the bridge with a configuration targetting eth0, and my router has the IP address for eth0 mapped via port 4711 to the outside world, but when I checked the NAT sessions table on the router I could see sessions for both eth0 and eth2. As soon as I ran $ ifconfig eth2 down I could see on SLAVE adjacency up messages. So there is something fishy going on with multiple network cards, might be worth trying to get to the bottom of this and then documenting what the issue is. I'm not totally clear on your setup. You have two interfaces, eth0 and eth2. I think I got that. And the bridge program is using eth0 for it's bridge. But how does your ethernet looks like? Is both eth0 and eth2 connected to the same physical network? Is the router on that same segment as well? What sessions are you seeing on the router? And what did the routing table on the machine running the bridge look like, if you have two interfaces? The bridge program does not try to do anything clever with the UDP packets, so they will be sent on any interface, based on your routing table. It might sound as if your router/NAT was pointing at the IP address of eth0, but the default entry of the routing table on your machine would be using eth2. But this is all wild guessing right now... Johnny

12 years, 8 months

Node 4.249

by mark＠wickensonline.co.uk

I think I've found it. My HP Microserver running Ubuntu 12.04 has two network cards in: eth0 and eth2. I run the bridge with a configuration targetting eth0, and my router has the IP address for eth0 mapped via port 4711 to the outside world, but when I checked the NAT sessions table on the router I could see sessions for both eth0 and eth2. As soon as I ran $ ifconfig eth2 down I could see on SLAVE adjacency up messages. So there is something fishy going on with multiple network cards, might be worth trying to get to the bottom of this and then documenting what the issue is. Mark.

12 years, 8 months

Node 4.249

by mark＠wickensonline.co.uk

On 26/08/12 20:00, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2012-08-26 20:13, Rob Jarratt wrote: (sending again as I sent this from the wrong account, apologies if you get a duplicate) As I work on my user mode DECnet router I sometimes leave it running for a while just to see that it is stable over the longer term. During those runs I have noticed that the adjacency 4.249 frequently drops out only to come back a few seconds later. This does not happen with any other adjacency. Before I go investigating, is there something unusual about this node? I can see the same at my end right now as well. It's not always like this, so I guess there is something going on with area 4? Johnny 4.249 is SLAVE which serves up the http://hecnet.eu website. I've had some weird stuff happening lately at this end, including the bridge program dying at times. Currently, for example, http://slave.hecnet.eu/area-list.html is reporting no connectivity which is backed up by operator.log: %%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 27-AUG-2012 22:48:51.79 %%%%%%%%%%% Message from user DECNET on SLAVE DECnet event 4.18, adjacency down

12 years, 8 months

Any DECnet Routing Protocol Experts Out There?

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

Good to hear that. "Check" to me was always a rather odd thing to find in a protocol specification. But I implemented it as instructed. I don't remember if it ever caught any bugs in the code I worked on, but it did seem to be a useful set of consistency checks so I didn't complain about it. paul On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:13 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote: I found a bug in my adjacency processing that made other adjacencies use index 0 in the decision database, I think that is what has been causing the Check failures.

12 years, 8 months

Node 4.249

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-08-26 20:13, Rob Jarratt wrote: (sending again as I sent this from the wrong account, apologies if you get a duplicate) As I work on my user mode DECnet router I sometimes leave it running for a while just to see that it is stable over the longer term. During those runs I have noticed that the adjacency 4.249 frequently drops out only to come back a few seconds later. This does not happen with any other adjacency. Before I go investigating, is there something unusual about this node? I can see the same at my end right now as well. It's not always like this, so I guess there is something going on with area 4? 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

12 years, 8 months

Node 4.249

by robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com

(sending again as I sent this from the wrong account, apologies if you get a duplicate) As I work on my user mode DECnet router I sometimes leave it running for a while just to see that it is stable over the longer term. During those runs I have noticed that the adjacency 4.249 frequently drops out only to come back a few seconds later. This does not happen with any other adjacency. Before I go investigating, is there something unusual about this node? Regards Rob

12 years, 8 months

Any DECnet Routing Protocol Experts Out There?

by robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com

I found a bug in my adjacency processing that made other adjacencies use index 0 in the decision database, I think that is what has been causing the Check failures. -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Paul_Koning at Dell.com Sent: 25 August 2012 22:55 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Any DECnet Routing Protocol Experts Out There? You process address 0 exactly as any other level 1 routing message entry. Then in the forwarding process of an L1 router, if the destination is out of area, use entry 0 to decide how to forward the packet. Why do you get failures from Check? I don't see how you could get that. paul On Aug 25, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote: I am working on a user mode DECnet router and I have a question about the Level 1 Routing message. Specifically, sometimes I receive a level 1 routing message with routing information for destination address 0. The spec says this represents the "nearest level 2 router". What I am not clear about is how this is supposed to be treated in the Decision Process, specifically Section 4.7.3 item F in the specification. The reason I ask is that if I blindly accept address 0 I think it corrupts the hop and cost tables, because the Check process then gets failures. Thanks Rob

12 years, 8 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet