Johnny,
I'm area 8 (have a bridge to you and multinet from gorvax to areas 19 and 2) - want me to bounce my side of the bridge?
Sampsa
On 1 Jul 2012, at 17:45, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-07-01 16:41, Johnny Billquist wrote:
There seems to be some problem with the bridge to area 7 and 8, as
observed from my view.
I have the adjacency constantly going down and up. Looking at the status
of the areas, my next hop is constantly showing as SG1 (19.41).
Now, SG1 has a separate connection to area 8, and communication to area
8 works. I assume that is because this separate path.
No communication seems to work to area 7 from me, and looking at the
path, it would appear that from me to area 7 it is:
me -> SG1(19.41) -> GORVAX(8.400) -> area 7.
Which is weird, since area 7 is (as far as I know) only connected to
HECnet through the bridge. I know that area 7 used to work fine. Is it
working for anyone else? Also, is connections out from 7 working?
As for area 8, anyone have any ideas? I'm wondering if I should just
shut down those two links for now, until we've figured out what the
problem is...
FYI: Doing some more experimentation right now, and these entries might be off in my bridge config if someone tries to contact these areas.
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
On 2012-07-01 16:41, Johnny Billquist wrote:
There seems to be some problem with the bridge to area 7 and 8, as
observed from my view.
I have the adjacency constantly going down and up. Looking at the status
of the areas, my next hop is constantly showing as SG1 (19.41).
Now, SG1 has a separate connection to area 8, and communication to area
8 works. I assume that is because this separate path.
No communication seems to work to area 7 from me, and looking at the
path, it would appear that from me to area 7 it is:
me -> SG1(19.41) -> GORVAX(8.400) -> area 7.
Which is weird, since area 7 is (as far as I know) only connected to
HECnet through the bridge. I know that area 7 used to work fine. Is it
working for anyone else? Also, is connections out from 7 working?
As for area 8, anyone have any ideas? I'm wondering if I should just
shut down those two links for now, until we've figured out what the
problem is...
FYI: Doing some more experimentation right now, and these entries might be off in my bridge config if someone tries to contact these areas.
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
There seems to be some problem with the bridge to area 7 and 8, as observed from my view.
I have the adjacency constantly going down and up. Looking at the status of the areas, my next hop is constantly showing as SG1 (19.41).
Now, SG1 has a separate connection to area 8, and communication to area 8 works. I assume that is because this separate path.
No communication seems to work to area 7 from me, and looking at the path, it would appear that from me to area 7 it is:
me -> SG1(19.41) -> GORVAX(8.400) -> area 7.
Which is weird, since area 7 is (as far as I know) only connected to HECnet through the bridge. I know that area 7 used to work fine. Is it working for anyone else? Also, is connections out from 7 working?
As for area 8, anyone have any ideas? I'm wondering if I should just shut down those two links for now, until we've figured out what the problem is...
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
On 30.6.2012 5:39, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On 6/29/2012 7:39 PM, Peter Coghlan wrote:
The Cisco DECnet configuration guide can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/decnet/configuration/guide/configuring_…
Thanks. I've downloaded it and had a look through it.
Let's assume the most usual conflict is at hand, where two different
ogranisations use area 1, but neither the networks nor the areas can be
merged, but the organisations need to communicate using DECnet.
Organisation A applies in the router the DECnet map for Organisation B
where the B's real area 1 is chosen to have a virtual area of 24 (which
is not used in either networks). Then B assignes a virtual area of 25 to
the A's real area 1. Then they configure their routers to use DECnet map
and the result looks like:
A Cisco ATG B
1.1 -----------------> 24.1 --------------------------------> 1.1
1.2 -----------------> 24.2 --------------------------------> 1.2
1.3 -----------------> 24.3 --------------------------------> 1.3
1.4 -----------------> 24.4 --------------------------------> 1.4
And in the opposite direction it looks like:
A
1.1 <------------------ 25.1 <-------------------------------- 1.1
1.2 <------------------ 25.2 <-------------------------------- 1.2
1.3 <------------------ 25.3 <-------------------------------- 1.3
1.4 <------------------ 25.4 <-------------------------------- 1.4
If there aren't any other conflicting areas, all other areas can be
routed normally.
That seems straightforward enough.
I could set up a test with you.
Thanks. However...
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is
required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single
mapping?
It didn't use to be, but the manual says it should be possible on some
release 12's but not all.
My poor old IGS has version 10.0(6) so it doesn't appear I would be
able to map
whole areas. The manual seems to say that no communication is possible
between
the two networks unless mapping entries exist for each of the hosts
that want
to communicate. This suggests I would need a mapping entry for every
host on
HECnet and every host on the other network. I think that would
probably be
too difficult to maintain and might not even fit in the NVRAM.
Maybe someone with a later version of IOS might like to try?
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
I could definitely give this a go. I'm running latest 12.4 on my 1841.
-brian
.
Please check your IOS if the Decnet map command is still included. Some Cisco document claimed that it has been removed from the latest versions.
Regards,
Kari
On 6/29/2012 7:39 PM, Peter Coghlan wrote:
The Cisco DECnet configuration guide can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/decnet/configuration/guide/configuring_…
Thanks. I've downloaded it and had a look through it.
Let's assume the most usual conflict is at hand, where two different
ogranisations use area 1, but neither the networks nor the areas can be
merged, but the organisations need to communicate using DECnet.
Organisation A applies in the router the DECnet map for Organisation B
where the B's real area 1 is chosen to have a virtual area of 24 (which
is not used in either networks). Then B assignes a virtual area of 25 to
the A's real area 1. Then they configure their routers to use DECnet map
and the result looks like:
A Cisco ATG B
1.1 -----------------> 24.1 --------------------------------> 1.1
1.2 -----------------> 24.2 --------------------------------> 1.2
1.3 -----------------> 24.3 --------------------------------> 1.3
1.4 -----------------> 24.4 --------------------------------> 1.4
And in the opposite direction it looks like:
A
1.1 <------------------ 25.1 <-------------------------------- 1.1
1.2 <------------------ 25.2 <-------------------------------- 1.2
1.3 <------------------ 25.3 <-------------------------------- 1.3
1.4 <------------------ 25.4 <-------------------------------- 1.4
If there aren't any other conflicting areas, all other areas can be
routed normally.
That seems straightforward enough.
I could set up a test with you.
Thanks. However...
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single mapping?
It didn't use to be, but the manual says it should be possible on some
release 12's but not all.
My poor old IGS has version 10.0(6) so it doesn't appear I would be able to map
whole areas. The manual seems to say that no communication is possible between
the two networks unless mapping entries exist for each of the hosts that want
to communicate. This suggests I would need a mapping entry for every host on
HECnet and every host on the other network. I think that would probably be
too difficult to maintain and might not even fit in the NVRAM.
Maybe someone with a later version of IOS might like to try?
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
I could definitely give this a go. I'm running latest 12.4 on my 1841.
-brian
The Cisco DECnet configuration guide can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/decnet/configuration/guide/configuring_…
Thanks. I've downloaded it and had a look through it.
Let's assume the most usual conflict is at hand, where two different
ogranisations use area 1, but neither the networks nor the areas can be
merged, but the organisations need to communicate using DECnet.
Organisation A applies in the router the DECnet map for Organisation B
where the B's real area 1 is chosen to have a virtual area of 24 (which
is not used in either networks). Then B assignes a virtual area of 25 to
the A's real area 1. Then they configure their routers to use DECnet map
and the result looks like:
A Cisco ATG B
1.1 -----------------> 24.1 --------------------------------> 1.1
1.2 -----------------> 24.2 --------------------------------> 1.2
1.3 -----------------> 24.3 --------------------------------> 1.3
1.4 -----------------> 24.4 --------------------------------> 1.4
And in the opposite direction it looks like:
A
1.1 <------------------ 25.1 <-------------------------------- 1.1
1.2 <------------------ 25.2 <-------------------------------- 1.2
1.3 <------------------ 25.3 <-------------------------------- 1.3
1.4 <------------------ 25.4 <-------------------------------- 1.4
If there aren't any other conflicting areas, all other areas can be
routed normally.
That seems straightforward enough.
I could set up a test with you.
Thanks. However...
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single mapping?
It didn't use to be, but the manual says it should be possible on some
release 12's but not all.
My poor old IGS has version 10.0(6) so it doesn't appear I would be able to map
whole areas. The manual seems to say that no communication is possible between
the two networks unless mapping entries exist for each of the hosts that want
to communicate. This suggests I would need a mapping entry for every host on
HECnet and every host on the other network. I think that would probably be
too difficult to maintain and might not even fit in the NVRAM.
Maybe someone with a later version of IOS might like to try?
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
On 29.6.2012 12:31, Peter Coghlan wrote:
Kari wrote:
On 28.6.2012 23:28, Rok Vidmar wrote:
I don't think that will work.
How about a bridge translating HECnet's area 1 to an
area unused in Italian net and translating Italian area 1
to an unused area in HECnet?
--
Regards, Rok
.
That's exactly what an ATG (Address Translation Gateway) does. Although
I haven't used it over TCP/IP (Internet in this case). Maybe it would
work if it is configured in either end of a GRE tunnel. Could be worth
testing.
I can't find my Cisco manual
The Cisco DECnet configuration guide can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/decnet/configuration/guide/configuring_…
but I've gone looking for suitable configuration
commands on my router and I found:
decnet map N.H <0-3> N.H Establish an ATG address mapping
The first N.H is described as "Local virtual DECnet address"
The number between 0 and 3 is the "Remote ATG network number"
The second N.H is described as "Remote real DECnet address"
I also find that it is possible to apply:
decnet <0-3> ATG network number
to each interface and it can also be applied globally. Presumably my current
decnet configuration defaults everything to being in ATG network number 0.
Can you describe how this can be used to map addresses between conflicting
areas?
Let's assume the most usual conflict is at hand, where two different ogranisations use area 1, but neither the networks nor the areas can be merged, but the organisations need to communicate using DECnet.
Organisation A applies in the router the DECnet map for Organisation B where the B's real area 1 is chosen to have a virtual area of 24 (which is not used in either networks). Then B assignes a virtual area of 25 to the A's real area 1. Then they configure their routers to use DECnet map and the result looks like:
A Cisco ATG B
1.1 -----------------> 24.1 --------------------------------> 1.1
1.2 -----------------> 24.2 --------------------------------> 1.2
1.3 -----------------> 24.3 --------------------------------> 1.3
1.4 -----------------> 24.4 --------------------------------> 1.4
And in the opposite direction it looks like:
A
1.1 <------------------ 25.1 <-------------------------------- 1.1
1.2 <------------------ 25.2 <-------------------------------- 1.2
1.3 <------------------ 25.3 <-------------------------------- 1.3
1.4 <------------------ 25.4 <-------------------------------- 1.4
If there aren't any other conflicting areas, all other areas can be routed normally.
Alternatively, if someone on the Italian network or a test network isolated
from hecnet is willing to set up another tunnel to me, I am willing to have a
go and see if I can get it to work.
I could set up a test with you.
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single mapping?
It didn't use to be, but the manual says it should be possible on some release 12's but not all.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
.
Regards,
Kari
On 2012-06-29 22:49, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I just noticed that something is acting up on the bridge. I have
adjacency coming and going, and dumping the bridge hashes, I can see
connections moving around in weird ways. I'm trying to pinpoint where
the problem is right now...
Expect some possible unstability on the bridge at the moment.
Looks like things calmed down again. Not sure what was going on there for a short while.
Anyway, nothing to report now. Things are nice and stable once more.
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
I just noticed that something is acting up on the bridge. I have adjacency coming and going, and dumping the bridge hashes, I can see connections moving around in weird ways. I'm trying to pinpoint where the problem is right now...
Expect some possible unstability on the bridge at the moment.
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
Kari wrote:
On 28.6.2012 23:28, Rok Vidmar wrote:
I don't think that will work.
How about a bridge translating HECnet's area 1 to an
area unused in Italian net and translating Italian area 1
to an unused area in HECnet?
--
Regards, Rok
.
That's exactly what an ATG (Address Translation Gateway) does. Although
I haven't used it over TCP/IP (Internet in this case). Maybe it would
work if it is configured in either end of a GRE tunnel. Could be worth
testing.
I can't find my Cisco manual but I've gone looking for suitable configuration
commands on my router and I found:
decnet map N.H <0-3> N.H Establish an ATG address mapping
The first N.H is described as "Local virtual DECnet address"
The number between 0 and 3 is the "Remote ATG network number"
The second N.H is described as "Remote real DECnet address"
I also find that it is possible to apply:
decnet <0-3> ATG network number
to each interface and it can also be applied globally. Presumably my current
decnet configuration defaults everything to being in ATG network number 0.
Can you describe how this can be used to map addresses between conflicting
areas?
Alternatively, if someone on the Italian network or a test network isolated
from hecnet is willing to set up another tunnel to me, I am willing to have a
go and see if I can get it to work.
The commands available seem to suggest an individual mapping is required for
every host. Is it also possible to map a whole area with a single mapping?
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
