Sorry guys - late to the party (West coast time zone and only a day after New Year - I was still sleeping). Did I see mention of a problem with the HUB:: tunnels, or did that get resolved? Let me know if the box needs a reboot.
Ian
On Jan 2, 2015, at 10:07 AM, <Paul_Koning at Dell.com> <Paul_Koning at Dell.com> wrote:
On Jan 2, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote:
Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's bridge
program which I use?
It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern.
Less network bandwidth because the GRE tunnel doesn t use Ethernet padding and regular Ethernet headers, while the JB bridge is a bridge so it does have both of those?
That seems like the only difference; from the DECnet routing layer point of view, both are LAN links and the protocol operation is the same for both.
FWIW, my Python based router includes GRE tunneling, and while I would not claim it is totally production grade code yet, it s in good enough shape that it might be interesting for one or two enterprising folks to try that approach. A useful property vs. Cisco boxes is the cost (free).
paul
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=48D0DC9692AA11E49…
Paul,
Does it run on a VMS supported version for Python?
If so then I' m interested in trying it out.
Hans
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
Origineel bericht
Van: Paul_Koning at Dell.com
Verzonden: vrijdag 2 januari 2015 19:07
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Hecnet Peering
On Jan 2, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote:
Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's bridge
program which I use?
It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern.
Less network bandwidth because the GRE tunnel doesn t use Ethernet padding and regular Ethernet headers, while the JB bridge is a bridge so it does have both of those?
That seems like the only difference; from the DECnet routing layer point of view, both are LAN links and the protocol operation is the same for both.
FWIW, my Python based router includes GRE tunneling, and while I would not claim it is totally production grade code yet, it s in good enough shape that it might be interesting for one or two enterprising folks to try that approach. A useful property vs. Cisco boxes is the cost (free).
paul
On Jan 2, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote:
Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's bridge
program which I use?
It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern.
Less network bandwidth because the GRE tunnel doesn t use Ethernet padding and regular Ethernet headers, while the JB bridge is a bridge so it does have both of those?
That seems like the only difference; from the DECnet routing layer point of view, both are LAN links and the protocol operation is the same for both.
FWIW, my Python based router includes GRE tunneling, and while I would not claim it is totally production grade code yet, it s in good enough shape that it might be interesting for one or two enterprising folks to try that approach. A useful property vs. Cisco boxes is the cost (free).
paul
What exactly do you mean by "it scales better" ?
Less bandwidth load on the Internet line, in my case 12 Mb/s ADSL.
Or less load on th local decent hosts?
The first would persuade me, easily.
Hans
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
Van: Tim Sneddon
Verzonden: vrijdag 2 januari 2015 18:40
Aan: hecnet at update.uu.se
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Hecnet Peering
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote:
Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's bridge
program which I use?
It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern.
But it won't pass through LAT or MOP. Pick your poison. :-)
It does scale better. However, it is possible to bridge LAT and/or MOP over the link also.
Regards, Tim.
On 2015-01-02 18:40, Tim Sneddon wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote:
Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's
bridge
program which I use?
It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern.
But it won't pass through LAT or MOP. Pick your poison. :-)
It does scale better. However, it is possible to bridge LAT and/or MOP
over the link also.
Ah. Cool. I wasn't sure if it would also bridge other protocols, since these are not related to DECnet as such.
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
Ah Johnny that's an easy choice then :-)
I'll stick to the bridge then
Happy New Year!
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
Origineel bericht
Van: Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: vrijdag 2 januari 2015 18:34
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Hecnet Peering
On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote:
Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's bridge
program which I use?
It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern.
But it won't pass through LAT or MOP. Pick your poison. :-)
Johnny
Hans
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
*Van: *Tim Sneddon
*Verzonden: *vrijdag 2 januari 2015 18:24
*Aan: *hecnet at update.uu.se
*Beantwoorden: *hecnet at Update.UU.SE
*Onderwerp: *Re: [HECnet] Hecnet Peering
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Steve Davidson <steve at davidson.net
<mailto:steve at davidson.net>> wrote:
Tim,
The short form... DEChubs are us. I have both the backplanes and
the MultiStacks. They currently have hubs, LAT servers, and
dedicated LAT printer modules. I even have the Packet Probe module
with software...
That should work nicely.
Regards, Tim.
--
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 2015-01-02 17:32, Tim Sneddon wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
I just checked some more. I can reach BENDER:: (12,2), so based on
that, HUB:: would appear to run correctly.
(HUB:: is supposedly my next hop going to BENDER::)
BENDER:: seems to be running Phase V (I suspect), as I can't really
speak NICE to it, but PHONE worked fine.
You are correct, BENDER:: is Phase V.
Suspected as much. It works weirdly. :-)
Anyway - as an additional update to the OP. Looking at MIM, I now see that my next hop for BENDER:: is DIMMA::, so I would still not totally rule out possible issues with HUB::
Not sure what the problem going to area 22 would be then...
Sometimes I have noticed dodgy routing. For a while there was a node on
the network advertising bad routes to the 12 network. I think it was a
Linux box doing it. I never figured out what was doing it as by the
time I got home and started looking at it, everything seemed to work
just fine :-)
Hmm. The Linux DECnet have never been properly debugged or tested. Whenever it is involved, one needs to be ware...
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 Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote:
Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's bridge
program which I use?
It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern.
But it won't pass through LAT or MOP. Pick your poison. :-)
It does scale better. However, it is possible to bridge LAT and/or MOP over the link also.
Regards, Tim.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Steve Davidson <steve at davidson.net> wrote:
Tim,
I am running DEChub 90's. Does the brouter work there or require the '900 platform? Actually I have extra power supplies come to think of it. Does the brouter require any special cabling? Thanks!
DEChub90s are perfect. It is not a DEChub900 module.
There is no special cabling. It has serial interfaces, but they won't be used. They have either a 10Base2 coaxial connection on top, or a 10baseT port on the front. Obviously, if they are in a DEChub, then they connect into the backplane like all the other modules.
Did you see my reply over DECnet?
Regards, Tim.
On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote:
Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's bridge
program which I use?
It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern.
But it won't pass through LAT or MOP. Pick your poison. :-)
Johnny
Hans
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
*Van: *Tim Sneddon
*Verzonden: *vrijdag 2 januari 2015 18:24
*Aan: *hecnet at update.uu.se
*Beantwoorden: *hecnet at Update.UU.SE
*Onderwerp: *Re: [HECnet] Hecnet Peering
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Steve Davidson <steve at davidson.net
<mailto:steve at davidson.net>> wrote:
Tim,
The short form... DEChubs are us. I have both the backplanes and
the MultiStacks. They currently have hubs, LAT servers, and
dedicated LAT printer modules. I even have the Packet Probe module
with software...
That should work nicely.
Regards, Tim.
--
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
