Hi. Ian McLaughlin wrote: Here's where I read about hidden areas: http://labs.hoffmanlabs.com/node/271 Hmm. Interesting article, although slightly wrong or imprecise perhaps. What they refer to as "named objects" are actually numbered objects. Named objects are the ones which aren't predefined in any way, and are for random program communications. For instance, MAIL is never refered to by a name, but instead by it's number, which is 27. All "well known services" have specific numbers assigned to them. Basically, if you have a network like this: ME => ROUTER => YOU Where ME:: and YOU:: are in conflicting areas, and ROUTER:: is a level 1 router between two level 2 routers, you would get from me to you using: ROUTER::YOU:: I haven't tried it, but it might be worth an experiment. It's called poor mans routing (PMR), but I haven't seen it used for exactly that purpose before. However, I doubt it can be solved that easily. In the level 1 router in the middle, you cannot get access to all nodes on both sides, in case you have an overlap of areas on both sides. However, as Steve is trying it, as a hidden area 63, it becomes possible. The level one router will only have one area 63 it knows about. And nodes inside that area 63 will not know of any other area 63. So it should be doable. He just needs to keep the physical networks separate, and it should just work. Johnny Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Hmm. Such a setup will at best be weird. The level-1 router in the middle, how would it know which way to go when a packet to an area that exist on both sides? So it would basically only be "useful" when both sides only wanted to talk to the node/area in the middle, and only from nodes for which there were no conflicts. Or atleast that is my guess, since I haven't actually tried it. Johnny Ian McLaughlin wrote: Maybe a bridge between the two? I read that you can have level-2-router => level-1-router => level-2-router that will allow you to bridge two networks that have conflicting area numbers. Ian. On 2009-12-03, at 3:38 PM, Steve Davidson wrote: What Johnny said... :-) -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 17:18 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE> <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE> Subject: Re: [HECnet] Others DECnets So, when are you finally going to join HECnet? :-) Johnny gerry77 at mail.com <mailto:gerry77 at mail.com> <mailto:gerry77 at mail.com> wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:39 -0500, you wrote: My version splits out LAT from MOP, adds SCA (LAVc) and LAST (InfoServer). The LAT/MOP split has been verified to work. LAVc support is being tested now. The LAST support testing is pending. I'll take advantage of this message to say that here in this mailing list I'm a little bit like an impostor, because in truth I'm not a member of HECnet, but of another Hobbyist DECnet based in Italy. :-P We are now running a quite modified version of Johnny's bridge: we departed from his project because some of us have connection and bandwidth issues that prevent the development of a strictly star-topology network as required by the HECnet bridge. We started experimenting many years ago (in the 2002-2004 timeframe) with Multinet and TCPware tunnels but were not happy with that solution because many of us had (and some still have) dynamic IP addresses which forced a tunnel recofiguration at every address change! At the time, we already did know about HECnet but not about the bridge, either because it didn't yet exist or because it was still unpublished, so we were forced to abandon out dreams of a DECnet of ours. About three years ago, in the first days of december 2006, we learnt about the bridge and started again our experiments, but we soon understood that we were in need of some changes (among other things we had some nasty packet loops in the first days), so we asked to Johnny the permission to modify his work and here we go: our network is nominally made up of about 30 nodes, all in the same area, but only three to four are online 24/7, and has a full mesh topology, that is every bridge is connected to every other bridge (but we later added a feature that allows for mixed topology networks). If someone is interested in the full feature list and other details, such as some DECnet tuning we needed, s/he can contact me off list. :-) Going back to the original topic, we choose to keep LAT and MOP together, and added LAST to the same group of protocols (but we renamed the .conf section from [lat] to [lan]). Instead, we didn't ever consider transporting SCA across the Internet because it's too much a time-sensitive protocol and would be probably almost useless, at least here. Did you succeeded, Steve, in keeping on quorum a cluster across the bridge and the Internet? Cheers, G. -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=36125A5AE06511DE8… -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol --- Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=A6EBD192E06611DEA…