Brian, could you verify that you have the latest version? I did some work to try and get rid of warnings a while back, and even though I'm sure some issues might be because of 64 bit issues, I would have expected some of the warnings you reported to have been fixed already...
Johnny
On 2012-08-09 21:00, Brian Hechinger wrote:
I'm trying to get the bridge built on OpenBSD 5.1 64-bit but it keep
segfaulting. Anyone ever get this working?
# cc -O2 -Wall -o bridge bridge.c -lpcap
bridge.c:65:1: warning: "MAX" redefined
In file included from /usr/include/netdb.h:90,
from bridge.c:32:
/usr/include/sys/param.h:191:1: warning: this is the location of the
previous definition
bridge.c: In function 'add_bridge':
bridge.c:241: warning: implicit declaration of function 'inet_aton'
bridge.c:263: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 2
has type 'char *'
bridge.c:263: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3
has type 'char *'
bridge.c: In function 'add_service':
bridge.c:276: warning: format '%s' expects type 'char *', but argument 3
has type 'struct BRIDGE *'
bridge.c: In function 'dump_data':
bridge.c:524: warning: implicit declaration of function 'inet_ntoa'
bridge.c:531: warning: format '%s' expects type 'char *', but argument 4
has type 'int'
bridge.c: In function 'main':
bridge.c:564: warning: unused variable 'port'
bridge.c:561: warning: unused variable 'len'
/tmp//cc69aRp2.o(.text+0x934): In function `add_bridge':
: warning: strcpy() is almost always misused, please use strlcpy()
# cp bridge /var/bridge/
# cd /var/bridge/
# ./bridge 4711
Adding router ''local''. 00000000:0
Adding router ''sampsa''. 0afc2a0a:4711
Adding DECnet bridge local.
Trying to match local
Matching against: local
Found match: local == local
Adding DECnet bridge sampsa.
Trying to match sampsa
Matching against: local
Matching against: sampsa
Found match: sampsa == sampsa
Adding LAT bridge local.
Trying to match local
Matching against: local
Found match: local == local
Adding LAT bridge sampsa.
Trying to match sampsa
Matching against: local
Matching against: sampsa
Found match: sampsa == sampsa
Host table:
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
-brian
On 2012-08-10 11:55, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Aargh just realised,
Those nodes should've been 52, not 5.
So:
52.555 LABVAX
52.556 KUHAVX
52.600 DEB390
Whoops. :-)
Updated now.
Johnny
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:48, Sampsa Laine wrote:
I'm talking about the DECNET for Linux MULTINET UDP tunnelling..
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:47, Rok Vidmar wrote:
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
With Multinet you can run DECnet over TCP in the same
DECnet area.
--
Regards, Rok
I'm talking about the DECNET for Linux MULTINET UDP tunnelling..
I'm talking about the DECNET for VMS Multinet UDP tunnelling.
Why should be the two different?
--
Regards, Rok
Aargh just realised,
Those nodes should've been 52, not 5.
So:
52.555 LABVAX
52.556 KUHAVX
52.600 DEB390
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:48, Sampsa Laine wrote:
I'm talking about the DECNET for Linux MULTINET UDP tunnelling..
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:47, Rok Vidmar wrote:
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
With Multinet you can run DECnet over TCP in the same
DECnet area.
--
Regards, Rok
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:52, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Yes, you are incorrect. There is nothing that requires an area here, and it just means you need to deal with a full blown DECnet stack, instead of a simpler endnode.
It might be worth understanding that there is nothing technical added by going to multiple areas. It is just a complication which allows you to have more nodes, but at the cost of more complex routing.
Even within one area, you can have a large number of hops between nodes. Makes no difference to DECnet. The rules for the topological layout is simple:
1. End-nodes needs to be adjacent to atleast one level 1 router.
2. All level 1 routers in an area must be able to talk with all other level 1 routers. And only level 1 routers route messages within an area, which means you cannot have an endnode in the chain.
The layout can be a star, a ring, a line, a combination, hybrid, or whatever. There are absolutely no topology that you can't have.
The type of links can also be anything. Ethernet, multidrop, point-to-point, or something weird. Makes no difference.
Ok, my bad, misunderstood the UDP Mutlinet tunnels :)
Drop that node and add DEB390 with the address 52.600 when you get the chance.
Sampsa
On 2012-08-10 11:42, Sampsa Laine wrote:
OK, my reasoning is this:
1. The z/Arch emulator hasn't got any ethenet support, just a CTC point to point link to the host
Area or not makes no difference for this.
2. I'll run MULTINET on both the Debian S/390 and the host
And? Another area makes no difference for this. (I thought Multinet was a TCP/IP stack in VMS... :-) )
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
Yes, you are incorrect. There is nothing that requires an area here, and it just means you need to deal with a full blown DECnet stack, instead of a simpler endnode.
It might be worth understanding that there is nothing technical added by going to multiple areas. It is just a complication which allows you to have more nodes, but at the cost of more complex routing.
Even within one area, you can have a large number of hops between nodes. Makes no difference to DECnet. The rules for the topological layout is simple:
1. End-nodes needs to be adjacent to atleast one level 1 router.
2. All level 1 routers in an area must be able to talk with all other level 1 routers. And only level 1 routers route messages within an area, which means you cannot have an endnode in the chain.
The layout can be a star, a ring, a line, a combination, hybrid, or whatever. There are absolutely no topology that you can't have.
The type of links can also be anything. Ethernet, multidrop, point-to-point, or something weird. Makes no difference.
Johnny
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:40, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-08-10 09:08, Sampsa Laine wrote:
5.555 LABVAX
5.556 KUHAVX
9.390 DEB390
Done (Although the area 9 thing is silly, and will probably just make your life harder).
Johnny
I'm talking about the DECNET for Linux MULTINET UDP tunnelling..
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:47, Rok Vidmar wrote:
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
With Multinet you can run DECnet over TCP in the same
DECnet area.
--
Regards, Rok
OK, my reasoning is this:
1. The z/Arch emulator hasn't got any ethenet support, just a CTC point to point link to the host
2. I'll run MULTINET on both the Debian S/390 and the host
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:40, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-08-10 09:08, Sampsa Laine wrote:
5.555 LABVAX
5.556 KUHAVX
9.390 DEB390
Done (Although the area 9 thing is silly, and will probably just make your life harder).
Johnny
