On 2014-05-25 20:16, Hans Vlems wrote:
My bridge program no longer connects to the other end. Did something change?
I had some issues about a week ago where it seemed your end was going yo-yo all the time, so I disabled it to test things. Forgot to turn it back on. Fixed now.
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
At 4:05 PM +0200 25/5/14, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Like I said before. I would start by examining various counters on the machines to
get more understanding of what the problem is, and then try to solve it from there.
I know that different network interface speeds mess things up, for example, and I
have code in my bridge to help get around the problem if the bridge is sitting
between the systems.
and you would see
49 Data overrun
and growing.
This is on the node running NFT, not FAL.
The plot narrows.
For completeness (feeding Google) : 2 11M+ DECnet nodes running inside simh inside a same instance of a VirtualBox Linux machine.
--
Jean-Yves Bernier
Sounds like a good idea. Probably takes less time to do than what I suggested.
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
Origineel bericht
Van: Jean-Yves Bernier
Verzonden: zondag 25 mei 2014 19:40
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Same MAC address on different nodes
At 7:04 PM +0200 25/5/14, Hans Vlems wrote:
Anyway, i'd stop using the same 08-00-2B address on two nodes,
shutdown the simulators the VM host and the real iron.
I have another idea waiting in the queue : virtualize a second NIC
and have each node have it's own. Bridge the virtual NIC's with real
ones, so they communicate over wire.
10.1 -> AA-00-04-00-01-28 -> 08:00:27:DA:68:3D en0 Linux <-> en0 MacPro
10.2 -> AA-00-04-00-02-28 -> 08:00:27:A9:51:87 en1 Linux <-> en1 MacPro
--
Jean-Yves Bernier
On 26 May 2014 01:38, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote: > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:56:20PM +0800, Tim Sneddon wrote: > > > > Thanks for the mention Brian. Yes, I am happy to help out. I'm not sure > > what is going on with Cory's tunnel to you, but I certainly have mine > > working: > > > > a12rtr#show decnet neigh > > Net Node Interface MAC address Flags > > 0 9.1023 Tunnel52 0000.0000.0000 A > > > > I have compared our tunnel configs and they are both the same, so I'm > > guessing it is a Cory's end. > > > > Cory, let me know if you want some help fixing this, although it seems your > > up to your eyeballs in it with your 11/23+. > > The issue isn't tunnels, exactly. It's the fact that I currently can't > contact Cory's router via SNMP to push the new config to. This doesn't > affect people like you who's tunnel config is still correct but does > affect someone like me who's IP has changed so Cory's router can no > longer talk to me. And I can't update it because his router refuses to > talk to me. :)
Of course, silly me. I forgot your IP had changed recently.
Regards, Tim.
At 7:04 PM +0200 25/5/14, Hans Vlems wrote:
Anyway, i'd stop using the same 08-00-2B address on two nodes, shutdown the simulators the VM host and the real iron.
I have another idea waiting in the queue : virtualize a second NIC and have each node have it's own. Bridge the virtual NIC's with real ones, so they communicate over wire.
10.1 -> AA-00-04-00-01-28 -> 08:00:27:DA:68:3D en0 Linux <-> en0 MacPro
10.2 -> AA-00-04-00-02-28 -> 08:00:27:A9:51:87 en1 Linux <-> en1 MacPro
--
Jean-Yves Bernier
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:56:20PM +0800, Tim Sneddon wrote:
Thanks for the mention Brian. Yes, I am happy to help out. I'm not sure
what is going on with Cory's tunnel to you, but I certainly have mine
working:
a12rtr#show decnet neigh
Net Node Interface MAC address Flags
0 9.1023 Tunnel52 0000.0000.0000 A
I have compared our tunnel configs and they are both the same, so I'm
guessing it is a Cory's end.
Cory, let me know if you want some help fixing this, although it seems your
up to your eyeballs in it with your 11/23+.
The issue isn't tunnels, exactly. It's the fact that I currently can't
contact Cory's router via SNMP to push the new config to. This doesn't
affect people like you who's tunnel config is still correct but does
affect someone like me who's IP has changed so Cory's router can no
longer talk to me. And I can't update it because his router refuses to
talk to me. :)
-brian
On 2014-05-25 19:04, Hans Vlems wrote:
You are absolutely correct, however what you see happening is strange.
The fact that performance sometimes sucks? It is not that strange. As I have mentioned a few times, DECnet do *not* handle lots of lost packets very well. It will degrade to horrendous performance.
This is easy to observe, if you have the right equipment around.
OK, I got the OS wrong. Because VMS and RT-11 are all I need :-)
:-)
That said, it should work. I'm not sure how RSX handled area routing but 30 years ago we were warned to configure endnodes because ALL the overhead incurred by circuit routers...
Huh? With ethernet, communication with adjacent nodes works without involving any routers anyway. And if you need to talk with anything beyond, you're going to go through the router on the way there anyway.
Really, unless you actually have several interfaces, there is no gain in running a router compared to an endnode. However, running a router definitely use up more resources, which is a disadvantage.
Anyway, i'd stop using the same 08-00-2B address on two nodes, shutdown the simulators the VM host and the real iron.
Would still not make any difference, which I have pointed out several times now, and also what Jean-Yves have been observing the last two days.
Really. There is no black magic here. I can explain every bit of it if someone needs more convincing.
Essentially, the MAC address in the actual ethernet controller (or the MAC address set before boot in simh) is irrelevant. Once DECnet starts running, that MAC address is not used anymore. It is just a trivia piece of information so that you can know what the hardware MAC address from the factory is. It is not used by anything, especially not anything related to network communication.
The VM host in turn cares even less, since whatever MAC address simh plays around with is fully local to simh, and does not affect the VM host.
Any questions?
Johnny
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
Origineel bericht
Van: Jean-Yves Bernier
Verzonden: zondag 25 mei 2014 18:47
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Same MAC address on different nodes
At 6:27 PM +0200 25/5/14, Hans Vlems wrote:
My apologies, it's been too long to remember rsx. A netgen is too
much work for an experiment.
No need to apologize :)
Background for the request: I had problems running two area routers
on the same lan, though just one was simh based. Both were VMS
though.
By running complex software under emulation, we take risks that
things don't work as expected. By adding a layer more with
virtualization, I take still more risks. What is amazing is that it
works most of the time.
--
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
BTW is it possible to transfer one simulated system to another hardware host?
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
Origineel bericht
Van: Jean-Yves Bernier
Verzonden: zondag 25 mei 2014 18:47
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Same MAC address on different nodes
At 6:27 PM +0200 25/5/14, Hans Vlems wrote:
My apologies, it's been too long to remember rsx. A netgen is too
much work for an experiment.
No need to apologize :)
Background for the request: I had problems running two area routers
on the same lan, though just one was simh based. Both were VMS
though.
By running complex software under emulation, we take risks that
things don't work as expected. By adding a layer more with
virtualization, I take still more risks. What is amazing is that it
works most of the time.
--
Jean-Yves Bernier
You are absolutely correct, however what you see happening is strange.
OK, I got the OS wrong. Because VMS and RT-11 are all I need :-)
That said, it should work. I'm not sure how RSX handled area routing but 30 years ago we were warned to configure endnodes because ALL the overhead incurred by circuit routers...
Anyway, i'd stop using the same 08-00-2B address on two nodes, shutdown the simulators the VM host and the real iron.
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
Origineel bericht
Van: Jean-Yves Bernier
Verzonden: zondag 25 mei 2014 18:47
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Same MAC address on different nodes
At 6:27 PM +0200 25/5/14, Hans Vlems wrote:
My apologies, it's been too long to remember rsx. A netgen is too
much work for an experiment.
No need to apologize :)
Background for the request: I had problems running two area routers
on the same lan, though just one was simh based. Both were VMS
though.
By running complex software under emulation, we take risks that
things don't work as expected. By adding a layer more with
virtualization, I take still more risks. What is amazing is that it
works most of the time.
--
Jean-Yves Bernier
