5 Nov
2021
5 Nov
'21
8:01 p.m.
On Nov 5, 2021, at 1:23 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire
at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 11/5/21 1:11 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
The best case is to be able to see the circuits that connect to the router, since that
will show those on the map. Next best is to know the node is reachable. If there is
another router in the same area that answers NICE requests, I'd see the list of
reachable nodes.
If all you have visible via NICE is level 2 connectivity out of area, and no circuits
(none of the NICE nodes are adjacent) then I can't tell the node is reachable. If
it's up it would make its area reachable in the L2 routing table, but that doesn't
tell me which specific L2 router is offering that reachability.
So yes, if you take a previously unexplorable area and stick a router into it that
answers NICE -- such as PyDECnet -- then the mapper can suddenly display it more
accurately.
paul
Yes, that's a typical issue. Or
DNA-compliant equipment that has NICE turned off or restricted. I looked into using the
DECnet MIB to get information out of Cisco routers but that didn't seem to be
practical.
I think Brian has done some work in that area. Or maybe that was just config stanza
injection.
If a Cisco router is visible from a compliant
router, it should appear.
...and it does, with two tunnels that Peter and I just brought up a few minutes ago.
But if you have a Cisco router behind another
one, the behind one won't be mapped unless there is another router in the same area,
one that does speak NICE, so it's seen as reachable.
So putting a Py router just *on* the network here, separate from the GRE tunnels on the
Cisco?