[HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

-----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner- hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Brian Hechinger Sent: 05 June 2012 18:36 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1:: On 6/5/2012 12:53 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote: -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner- hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: 04 June 2012 23:17 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1:: FYI - Update now have a Cisco box, which will be setup within a few days to be able to route DECnet over IP, so that will become another options to hook into HECnet at the Update site. For people who don't need LAT and have a Cisco box, this is way better than the bridge program. (If you really want LAT with other parts of HECnet, then there is no alternative to the bridge...) Johnny I assume you are using GRE on the Cisco box. I am not an expert in this stuff so pardon the na ve question but, what is it about Cisco that makes it better than the bridge? After all aren't they really doing the same thing? Is it just that you don t need a server running the bridge (could use a Raspberry Pi for that now) or is it the use of GRE? From a skim of RFC 2784 and 2890 GRE doesn't look too complicated, perhaps the bridge could be changed to implement GRE if that helps in some way. I don't know much about "professional" routers and Cisco stuff in particular. If there are advantages to using a Cisco router, what should I be looking for if I wanted to pick up something cheap on EBay? Could this work in a domestic environment with an ISP that gives out dynamic IP addresses? The cisco isn't bridging traffic across the GRE link it's doing actual DECnet routing. It's closer in function to a Multinet tunnel. -brian Forgive my ignorance, but when you say "actual DECnet routing", it must be transporting it over something, what is that something? I assume it is IP, in which case it would still need to encapsulate the DECnet in IP wouldn't it? Have I misunderstood something here? Regards Rob