[HECnet] Suggestions for LAT.

On 2010-10-17 05:44, Steve Davidson wrote: Johnny Billquist On 2010-10-17 05:16, Steve Davidson wrote: Johnny Billquist On 2010-10-17 04:01, Johnny Billquist wrote: So here is a new suggestion for the bridge which is "hubbed" around Update. 0 Publicly available systems 1 Update 2 BQT Let me know, and I'll happily assign LAT groups for others as well. Small correction to that list: 0 Public systems 1 Update 2 Update 3 BQT 4 BQT 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, The way I do it around here is use group 0 for public access. It is the default group anyway. I use group 19, which is also my DECnet area for my private use. This allows us to have 63 private areas if we map to DECnet area numbers. Areas from 64 to 255 can be special case. I use 64 whe I want to combine my group with someone else. Nice that we agree on group 0. :-) However, I see very little need to combine groups. If you want to combine groups, just set the port to access both groups instead. I would suggest that group 0 be public group 1 through 63 be private based on DECnet area # (self managed) groups 64-255 be managed (and reserved) (each area could have 4 such #s) I see a problem with that. Areas are not a good separation here. There are several different people in area 1, for instance, which don't really match the groups of systems that might be public or private. I am (as you might have noticed) separating me (BQT) from Update, even though we're both in area 1. There are more people in area 1 as well, which I would believe it would make more sense to place in other groups as well. Also, I have further separated my groups into two parts. General access systems and special services. So, for me and Update, it now looks like this: 0 General public access 1 General public access for Update users 2 Consoles for Update machines 3 General access for my systems 4 Consoles for my systems So, for Update terminal servers, I have set them to see machines in group 0 and 1. For my terminal servers, I see group 0,1 and 3 by default (since I'm also using Update machines regularly). When I need to fool around with systems, I also add group 2 and 4. When Update people would need to fool around, they would add group 2, they don't have access to my systems in general, and there is no point for them to see those (my console) services. I hope you see the point here. Because I am already using group 64 I am reserving it. I make it available to others when it makes sense for me to "share" as it were. Reserved groups should be by invitation only because as you point out the list does get cluttered. No problem with that. I'm definitely no where near group 64 so far. But I also think that people should not set their machines to be in other groups than their own unless it is very obvious that the machines actually belong in several groups. But (as you probably know), there is no way to prevent anyone from setting up any group numbers they want, so this will be very much by voluntary participation. The use of passwords is a great idea for the DECservers we have in HECnet. Some of mine have it, some do not - personal choice. Just making suggestions. :-) 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 When I rebuilt BUBBLE for Mark I enabled group 4 for his local group of machines and group 19 so that we could go back and forth as necessary. This was prior to your announcement of groups you proposed to use. I just made a proposition because I started thinking that the list when I do a "SHOW SERVICE" starts to look a bit long and cluttered with machines that really are irrelevant for me to see. However, I have absolutely no problem using other groups for me and Update, so it's not about the numbers as such. But I definitely can't work with a mapping to area numbers, since area numbers don't reflect any division as such. It's more of a connectivity issue, with different levels of routers. Also, since LAT is not routed, this numbering scheme is very local to the machines connected to this specific bridge segment, and is not global for HECnet as a whole. So I'll happily move myself to another LAT group. I just want two groups for Update, and two for myself, so I can make a sensible separation between different groups of services. And it would be nice to not have a bunch of services in group 0 which are private, and possibly even not general connections to login services. 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