I'm connecting via a NetBSD 4.0 system with two (2) NIC's. One NIC
is connected to the Internet router, the other is managed entirely by
Johnny's bridge program.
Does the bridge program need two NIC's?
one for DECnet (with the necessarily forced MAC)
2nd for UDP? can the UDP port share with TCP/IP functionality?
i.e., to get from
"Internet" <--> Bridge <--> DECnet <--> DECnet-consuming-application
how many NICs do I need? Since the DECnet-consuming-application
must have a DECnet address, I know it needs it's own NIC on which
it can own a corresponding MAC in the DECnet address range, but
does the DECnet side of the Bridge program need it's own DECnet
address also?
Is the short answer to go read some documentation on the bridge program?
Aloha, Angela Kahealani
--
"(I'll) Be Seeing You..." All information and transactions are
private between the parties, and are non negotiable. All rights
reserve without prejudice, Angela Kahealani. http://kahealani.com
Something that Zane mentioned suggested this question. How are you
connecting to HECnet?
I'm connecting via a NetBSD 4.0 system with two (2) NIC's. One NIC is
connected to the Internet router, the other is managed entirely by
Johnny's bridge program. It only sees DECnet traffic through the
bridge, no IP at all. It works quite well for what it is. I should
mention that the NetBSD system is a Pentium 166 with 32MB of memory.
What others see is a VAXstation 4000 Model 60 (AGENA::) running VMS 7.3.
It works for me!
-Steve
At 5:44 PM -0600 3/1/09, Patrick J. Jankowiak wrote:
I am mainly reading the mail list.. It';s interesting but at this time I have no ability to participate. There is a VMS box, but no way to connect it to HECNET. So keep up the good work.
thanks,
Patrick Jankowiak
What is your TCP stack? If you're using Multinet you can use it to connect.
Zane
--
| 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/ |
Sampsa,
Could you update the DECnet database using MIM:: please. Area 19
appears to be unknown to your system.
Thanks.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Sampsa Laine
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 19:09
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] What use are *you* making of HECnet?
Ok, so I just realised CHIMPY is in fact acting as a gateway into and
out of HECnet already :)
To send mail in:
Address the message to "<HECNET NODE>::
<USER>"@chimpymail.sampsa.com
To send mail out
Address the message to CHIMPY::SMTP%"<Internet email address>"
Sampsa
On 1 Mar 2009, at 23:53, Peter Lothberg wrote:
If I remember right, it was/is Robert Armstrong who had that up and
running.
LEGATO used to relay email between HECnet (using MAIL11) and the
Internet/SMTP, but I quit doing that last fall when I switched
registrars.
There's no reason I couldn't - I just never bothered to set up the
necessary
domain name and mail routing again.
It was pretty much never used, even by me - after all, everyone
with a
HECnet connection already has an Internet connection.
Bob
We could talk "SMTP" over DECnet.....
-P
Ok, so I just realised CHIMPY is in fact acting as a gateway into and out of HECnet already :)
To send mail in:
Address the message to "<HECNET NODE>:: <USER>"@chimpymail.sampsa.com
To send mail out
Address the message to CHIMPY::SMTP%"<Internet email address>"
Sampsa
On 1 Mar 2009, at 23:53, Peter Lothberg wrote:
If I remember right, it was/is Robert Armstrong who had that up and
running.
LEGATO used to relay email between HECnet (using MAIL11) and the
Internet/SMTP, but I quit doing that last fall when I switched registrars.
There's no reason I couldn't - I just never bothered to set up the necessary
domain name and mail routing again.
It was pretty much never used, even by me - after all, everyone with a
HECnet connection already has an Internet connection.
Bob
We could talk "SMTP" over DECnet.....
-P
Most real core IP networks have MTU=4470 or bigger (10GE 9K), but as soon as you
hit a 100Mbit ethernet thing or so, you loose...
-P
Paul Koning wrote:
"Jason" == Jason Stevens <neozeed at gmail.com> writes:
As for fragmentation... Now I assume you are talking about the
encapsulation of ethernet packets in UDP packets. Those will be a
bit larger still, and will almost certainly be fragmented when
sent over the internet, yes. I don't see a problem with that. Do
you?
Jason> Well if you were trying to send the whole 1500 bytes of data +
Jason> headers in the UDP packet won't it cut stuff off?
No, not unless it's either IPv6, or you set the "don't fragment" flag
in the IP header. IPv4 will fragment oversized packets no matter
what's inside, and indeed this is the only way for random size
UDPgrams to get where they are going. It should work fine. Note that
fragmentation is often not all that efficient. Compared with the
performance of old 10Mb/s DEC Ethernet gear, that's unlikely to be an
issue.
Actually, since there isn't a good way of finding out how large packets
you can send, fragmentation is almost neccesary. It can occur anywhere
along the way from source to destination, not only at the start or end.
And fragmentation is actually the most efficient way of getting data
across. The problem is if one fragment is lost, which will cause
retransmission of a lot of fragments. That's the reason TCP tries to
avoid it.
But with large IP packets, you get a lower protocol overhead compared to
actual data transferred.
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
If I remember right, it was/is Robert Armstrong who had that up and
running.
LEGATO used to relay email between HECnet (using MAIL11) and the
Internet/SMTP, but I quit doing that last fall when I switched registrars.
There's no reason I couldn't - I just never bothered to set up the necessary
domain name and mail routing again.
It was pretty much never used, even by me - after all, everyone with a
HECnet connection already has an Internet connection.
Bob
We could talk "SMTP" over DECnet.....
-P
I am mainly reading the mail list.. It';s interesting but at this time I have no ability to participate. There is a VMS box, but no way to connect it to HECNET. So keep up the good work.
thanks,
Patrick Jankowiak
Steve Davidson wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering what use everyone is making of HECnet. My environment (DECnet area 19) has just come up. Johnny and I have done simple tests and everything that we have tried so far seems to work quite well.
Comments?
Thanks,
-Steve Davidson
Hollis, NH USA
Paul Koning wrote:
"Johnny" == Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
gerry> We still do not know how these UDP related problems would/will
gerry> impact other protocols like LAT, LAD/LAST and MOP because we
gerry> haven't experimented so much as with pure DECnet. Any
gerry> contribution and suggestions on how to force reduced frame
gerry> size for those protocols would be much appreciated. :-)
>> I can't think of any. The general rule at DEC was that some basic
>> level of design competence was assumed. Getting the Ethernet
>> frame size right was certainly part of the basic IQ test.
>> >> The only solution I can think of is to reduce the MTU of your
>> local Ethernet on the machine doing the UDP encapsulation. That
>> would force the packets to be fragmented at origination time,
>> which means your defective routers will see small-enough packets.
Johnny> If I suspect right, that won't solve it. I haven't any
Johnny> direct experience with these kind of problems, but the few
Johnny> cases that I'm semi-aware of are actually of
Johnny> bridges/gateways/routers that can't handled IP
Johnny> fragments. Forcing a fragment even earlier won't help.
Oh. I thought the issue was that those "routers" couldn't do
fragmentation right.
It could be. As I said, I'm just "guessing".
If the problem is that they look at the header to see if it's
fragmented -- which is something they should not care about -- and
then proceed to get confused, then indeed they are beyond all hope and
the only solution is to scrap them and get real routers.
Well, the problem with policy based firewalls/routers is that they inspect more (in fact, they have to) than the IP header. And some of them are too stupid to deal with fragments.
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
"Johnny" == Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
gerry> We still do not know how these UDP related problems would/will
gerry> impact other protocols like LAT, LAD/LAST and MOP because we
gerry> haven't experimented so much as with pure DECnet. Any
gerry> contribution and suggestions on how to force reduced frame
gerry> size for those protocols would be much appreciated. :-)
I can't think of any. The general rule at DEC was that some basic
level of design competence was assumed. Getting the Ethernet
frame size right was certainly part of the basic IQ test.
The only solution I can think of is to reduce the MTU of your
local Ethernet on the machine doing the UDP encapsulation. That
would force the packets to be fragmented at origination time,
which means your defective routers will see small-enough packets.
Johnny> If I suspect right, that won't solve it. I haven't any
Johnny> direct experience with these kind of problems, but the few
Johnny> cases that I'm semi-aware of are actually of
Johnny> bridges/gateways/routers that can't handled IP
Johnny> fragments. Forcing a fragment even earlier won't help.
Oh. I thought the issue was that those "routers" couldn't do
fragmentation right.
If the problem is that they look at the header to see if it's
fragmented -- which is something they should not care about -- and
then proceed to get confused, then indeed they are beyond all hope and
the only solution is to scrap them and get real routers.
paul
