Christine,
Would it be ok to come up tomorrow afternoon?
Sampsa
On 9 Nov 2009, at 09:22, Christine Caulfield wrote:
Hiya I didn't see a reply, so I'm sending this again just in case ...
Chrissie
On 04/11/09 07:31, Christine Caulfield wrote:
Hiya,
By "this week" and "next week" do you mean "next week" and "the week
after"? Cos I thought you were coming next week now anyway!!
Well to be helpful ... next week (starting 9th) is fine Tuesday
Wednesday & Friday. The week after (starting 16th) is OK Monday, Tuesday
& Wednesday. The week after that (starting 23rd) is out completely
unless you turn up around 9am in the morning. Weekends I can't do until
... hmm about March, and evenings are complicated and need to be
organised near to the time.
Can fit in with any of that ?
Chrissie
On 03/11/09 23:11, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Christine,
Terribly sorry about this, but turns out the guy I'm meant to drive down
from Leeds can't make it this week - how is next week looking for you?
Sampsa
On 27 Oct 2009, at 15:37, Christine Caulfield wrote:
Oh god, my boiler is the same.
It used to crash every two or three weeks. And the plumber told me how
to refill it and reset it. In the end it turned out to be a very
slightly leaky radiator and it's been fine after that. I'm still
supposed to check the pressure now and then though.
/me goes off to do it while she remembers.
Chrissie
On 27/10/09 15:30, Sampsa Laine wrote:
OK, cool, we'll synchronise schedules with my friend, probably come up
on Wednesday or Friday (Wed ideally, I'm thinking the traffic into
London on Friday might be a lot of Epic Phail).
As for the boiler repair, it was free - only had it installed a few
months back (behind my spare freezer, which isn't so great). Turns out
it just needed a top-up - this involved the guy fiddling with two
dials.
Now the stupid thing cost me thousands AND has a computer already built
in, how freaking hard can it be to make the topping-up thing automatic.
Sampsa
On 27 Oct 2009, at 15:27, Christine Caulfield wrote:
Ahhh No problem.
That week is fine apart from Monday and Thursday.
I hope the boiler doesn't cost too much to fix :S
Chrissie
On 27/10/09 15:09, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Oh crap, so it was - I ACTUALLY mean the week commencing the 9th -
sorry
about the confusion, been dealing with boiler repair guys all day.
Sampsa
On 27 Oct 2009, at 14:27, Christine Caulfield wrote:
Hiya
That's the week I thought you meant anyway! So that's fine.
My address is
39 St James Terrace
Horsforth
Leeds
LS18 5QT
Phone 0113 2288310
Chrissie
On 27/10/09 14:01, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Actually, if you can hold on to them for another week - i.e. the
week
commencing 2 Nov, I'd be able to synchronise giving my friend a
lift to
London with the pick up. If this is a problem, no worries, I'll
come up
on next Thursday.
sampsa
On 27 Oct 2009, at 13:50, Christine Caulfield wrote:
On 27/10/09 12:41, Sampsa Laine wrote:
I'll take the VAXstation and Alpha PWS if you can spare them and
the CD
drives - as for pick up, well I'm between jobs so it's no biggie,
could
come up next week if that works for you.
Yes, that's fine. I work from home so most days during the daytime
will be OK, apart from Wednesday morning. Just give me a day or
so's
notice when you'll be here and I'll be ready.
Chrissie
But Johnny's bridge does however support bridging it so in practice it can be used for long distance connections on HECnet...
Sampsa
On 10 Nov 2009, at 15:21, Paul Koning wrote:
Yes, LAT is a layer 2 protocol so it's not routable, and its timers and delay assumptions are for LANs, not for long distance networks.
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Mark Wickens
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:19 AM
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: [HECnet] Talking of other possible protocols
Am I right in thinking that LAT is only suitable for the local network?
I just tried
Local> connect pdxvax
from the DECserver 90M just for a laugh.
Regards, Mark.
Yes, LAT is a layer 2 protocol so it's not routable, and its timers and delay assumptions are for LANs, not for long distance networks.
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Mark Wickens
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:19 AM
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: [HECnet] Talking of other possible protocols
Am I right in thinking that LAT is only suitable for the local network?
I just tried
Local> connect pdxvax
from the DECserver 90M just for a laugh.
Regards, Mark.
Am I right in thinking that LAT is only suitable for the local network?
I just tried
Local> connect pdxvax
from the DECserver 90M just for a laugh.
Regards, Mark.
Except that LAT is currently turned off on PDXVAX, you could try MONK and see what happens.
Zane
At 3:23 PM +0000 11/10/09, Sampsa Laine wrote:
But Johnny's bridge does however support bridging it so in practice it can be used for long distance connections on HECnet...
Sampsa
On 10 Nov 2009, at 15:21, Paul Koning wrote:
Yes, LAT is a layer 2 protocol so it's not routable, and its timers and delay assumptions are for LANs, not for long distance networks.
paul
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Mark Wickens
Am I right in thinking that LAT is only suitable for the local network?
I just tried
Local> connect pdxvax
from the DECserver 90M just for a laugh.
Regards, Mark.
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
You can use two OpenBSD systems to tunnel Ethernet-over-IP. I did this
between two sites each with a 2M/256K ADSL cct (same ISP), and clustered an
Alphastation at one site to SimH VAX at another (remote disk access was
slow...)
Simple PF rules would block all IP on the tunnel, but not sure if you could
specify to allow only DECnet frames across.
Cheers,
Andrew
On (15:31 09/11/09), Sampsa Laine wrote:
Guys,
I realise that at the moment there aren't many people involved that do
not have static IPs but I think as time goes on consumer grade ISPs
are going to start cutting back on the amount of IPs a residential
customer can have.
With this in mind, might there be some mileage in setting up a VPN for
HECnet use? This way we would not need to worry about whether we have
public static IPs in the future (most VPNs are happy to work with
DYNDNS etc) and it would also add a layer of security to HECnet
without any changes needed to the bridge etc.
Sampsa
--
Andrew Back
a at smokebelch.org
Sampsa Laine wrote:
Maybe it would be more worthwile for someone to hack my bridge just a
little, so that changes in DNS names were discovered, and automatically
handled.
Heck, you don't even have to change my bridge program. Just add a small
monitoring program, who don't do anything else than regularly check if
any of the names in the bridge.conf file have changed to resolve to a
different IP address, and if so, send a HUP to the bridge program, and
we'll be back in business.
I'm all for this...
Start hacking your small monitor daemon! :-)
Let it do name lookups once an hour, perhaps (configurable), and have
the bridge process as a fork. Then it's easy to just send the HUPs
whenever needed. The program should be pretty small, I'd guess. I just
don't have any time to do this myself right now. And it's a good
exercise for someone.
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
Add security?
You mean as in me opening my internal network to all kind of IP traffic
from any other HECnet user? As opposed to today, when they can only
transmit DECnet packets to my internal network?
Not forgetting that we'd still need the bridge software, since no VPN
solution I know of, is able to route DECnet natively.
Well I was personally gonna move my HECNET stuff onto a separate VLAN, what I meant was that running the bridge say over a VPN would add some security from the outside world - obviously this is probably pretty negligible anyway.
And not to forget that DYNDNS is a security problem in itself. :-)
And we'd also still get the occasional disruption in traffic when
someones address do change, until the DNS is updated and propagated.
Fair point.
Maybe it would be more worthwile for someone to hack my bridge just a
little, so that changes in DNS names were discovered, and automatically
handled.
Heck, you don't even have to change my bridge program. Just add a small
monitoring program, who don't do anything else than regularly check if
any of the names in the bridge.conf file have changed to resolve to a
different IP address, and if so, send a HUP to the bridge program, and
we'll be back in business.
I'm all for this...
Sampsa
Feel free. But please don't involve HECnet with that.
Not only do I want to keep the number of protocols running over the
bridges low in order to keep atleast a semblance of control of what is
happening, if I don't remember wrong, IPX/SPX are very ugly protocols,
who are using broadcasts for a lot of stuff. Meaning it can really bog
down systems who don't even care about it.
In short - it is a protocol that should have been banned! :-)
Johnny
Sampsa Laine wrote:
Yeah, I'd be up for rolling out a Novell server - never done it before.
Sampsa
On 9 Nov 2009, at 16:13, neozeed wrote:
I found my notes on OpenVPN & bridging...
http://virtuallyfun.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-fun-networking-with-ms-dos-no…
<http://virtuallyfun.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-fun-networking-with-ms-dos-no…>if it helps any, the only 'static' ip that would be needed would be the server that is bridging its tap/tun to the hecnet.... And even that could be on dyndns...
I'm fishing around for my old Netware 3.12 diskettes to rebuild it for the heck of it today.
speaking of which, in the quest for alternate protocols, why not IPX/SPX?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net <mailto:wonko at 4amlunch.net>> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:58:59AM -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote:
> At 3:31 PM +0000 11/9/09, Sampsa Laine wrote:
> >I realise that at the moment there aren't many people involved that
> >do not have static IPs but I think as time goes on consumer grade
> >ISPs are going to start cutting back on the amount of IPs a
> >residential customer can have.
> >
> >With this in mind, might there be some mileage in setting up a VPN
> >for HECnet use? This way we would not need to worry about
whether we
> >have public static IPs in the future (most VPNs are happy to work
> >with DYNDNS etc) and it would also add a layer of security to
HECnet
> >without any changes needed to the bridge etc.
>
> I have to pay for a commercial line, and not simply the low-end
> commercial line, but a higher-grade one in order to get a static IP.
> That's part of why I have such a fast connection now. Honestly
> between the cost of the commercial line and the added
electricity use
> it really isn't worth what it's costing me each month to keep this
> going since I don't really have time to mess with such things. :-(
Does it matter if the "client" end of the tunnel has a dynamic IP?
If not
we only need a handful of static IPs. Once the new box gets put
into place
at colo i was going to setup simh on it. I could be a massive
routing hub
if people wanted to connect their tunnels to me.
-brian
--
"Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta
tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard
full of
pop tarts and pancake mix." -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435)
--
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
Can you make it only bridge specific ethernet type packets, and not
transfer anything else?
If so, that could be a good replacement for my bridge program.
Johnny
neozeed wrote:
OpenVPN will bridge, as I've done IPX/SPX over it... On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com <mailto:sampsa at mac.com>> wrote:
Guys,
I realise that at the moment there aren't many people involved that
do not have static IPs but I think as time goes on consumer grade
ISPs are going to start cutting back on the amount of IPs a
residential customer can have.
With this in mind, might there be some mileage in setting up a VPN
for HECnet use? This way we would not need to worry about whether we
have public static IPs in the future (most VPNs are happy to work
with DYNDNS etc) and it would also add a layer of security to HECnet
without any changes needed to the bridge etc.
Sampsa
--
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
