On 2011-11-26 08.43, Angela Kahealani wrote: On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 02:35:17AM -0500, Steve Davidson wrote: Well here's three reasons: 1) they use DECnet area 1 thus area collision Yes. That was an unfortunate decision of them. 2) they use some of the names we already use thus name space collision That is not really a big issue. DECnet do not have a requirement for a coherent nodename database. Every machine can have its own. I keep a nodename database on MIM, which people are welcome to register in, for us to be able to copy and keep a synched version, but anyone on HECnet can really have their own different database if they want to. 3) and from what I remember, they are entirely dynamic DNS based and thus had to make major changes to the bridge to even exist. The changes they made work just fine, BTW... Yes. That was one reason that I remember, now that you mention it. -Steve So, then do they not have a superior solution which could be adopted by the existing HECNET? Depends on your definition of "superior". They manage dynamic addresses, at the cost of either exposing to name resolution hiccups, slowness, name poisoning, and whatnot, or else a potential for security exposure if they send, and accept traffic from random nodes in some time window. The latter reasons are why I do not have such a thing in the bridge in general. DECnet is not a very secure protocol. Passwords fly through it in clear text. I am not fond of the possibility of that traffic going to some random address in general, and even less fond of opening up the virtual ethernet to any random place to inject traffic. I'm happy to discuss and explain the problems if people want to, but I seriously doubt I'll change my mind. I have given it much thought over the years. Johnny