-----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Brian Hechinger Sent: 26 December 2012 10:49 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] HECnet mapping project On 12/26/2012 4:30 AM, Rob Jarratt wrote: Actually it looks like I would need to implement various other layers before I could even start on NICE, that might be a bit too much. SNMP might be an option in that case. I don't know much about the details of SNMP, I can look it up of course but I guess there would need to be a format for the routing and end node data, if I can match what CISCO produces then that would make it easier, anyone have any info on this? You guys got off into the woods fast. :) I will look into non-dec router devices after we get the dec ones nailed down with my current code. I'm thinking possibly SNMP for the cisco devices, yes. Not 100% sure that'll work though. As to your router if you don't want to bother with NICE or SNMP just let me know how I remotely query your device. How that happens is up to you so long as it isn't silly. :) A simple API that shoots back something like JSON or XML is fine, for example. I have been out all day and was thinking along these lines myself. I could have a TCP or UDP port that sends back a file in some format on receiving a request. I could implement a pseudo-NCP interface which accepts only exactly the commands it needs. The only problem I see with this is that you wouldn't necessarily know the IP address from the DECnet address so it wouldn't be readily discoverable without some manual configuration of known "other" routers. The alternative would be for the router to periodically post the information somewhere, perhaps send the data over UDP or TCP to some location or other? Any other suggestions welcome. Regards Rob We'll talk later when I get to you. :) Just to cover something here, as far as non-bridge link I *will not* do manual stuff. That's just icky. For the bridge connections I don't see that we have a lot of choice so we'll have to think on that when we get it. -brian