[HECnet] VPN?

[Johnny Billquist]

Feel free. But please don't involve HECnet with that.

Not only do I want to keep the number of protocols running over the
bridges low in order to keep atleast a semblance of control of what is
happening, if I don't remember wrong, IPX/SPX are very ugly protocols,
who are using broadcasts for a lot of stuff. Meaning it can really bog
down systems who don't even care about it.

In short - it is a protocol that should have been banned! :-)

	Johnny

Sampsa Laine wrote:
Yeah, I'd be up for rolling out a Novell server - never done it before.
Sampsa
On 9 Nov 2009, at 16:13, neozeed wrote:
I found my notes on OpenVPN & bridging...

http://virtuallyfun.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-fun-networking-with-ms-dos-novell.html

<http://virtuallyfun.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-fun-networking-with-ms-dos-novell.html>if it helps any, the only 'static' ip that would be needed would be the server that is bridging its tap/tun to the hecnet....   And even that could be on dyndns...

I'm fishing around for my old Netware 3.12 diskettes to rebuild it for the heck of it today.

speaking of which, in the quest for alternate protocols, why not IPX/SPX?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net <mailto:wonko at 4amlunch.net>> wrote:

      On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:58:59AM -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote:
      > At 3:31 PM +0000 11/9/09, Sampsa Laine wrote:
      > >I realise that at the moment there aren't many people involved that
      > >do not have static IPs but I think as time goes on consumer grade
      > >ISPs are going to start cutting back on the amount of IPs a
      > >residential customer can have.
      > >
      > >With this in mind, might there be some mileage in setting up a VPN
      > >for HECnet use? This way we would not need to worry about
      whether we
      > >have public static IPs in the future (most VPNs are happy to work
      > >with DYNDNS etc) and it would also add a layer of security to
      HECnet
      > >without any   changes needed to the bridge etc.
      >
      > I have to pay for a commercial line, and not simply the low-end
      > commercial line, but a higher-grade one in order to get a static IP.
      > That's part of why I have such a fast connection now.   Honestly
      > between the cost of the commercial line and the added
      electricity use
      > it really isn't worth what it's costing me each month to keep this
      > going since I don't really have time to mess with such things.   :-(

      Does it matter if the "client" end of the tunnel has a dynamic IP?
        If not
      we only need a handful of static IPs.   Once the new box gets put
      into place
      at colo i was going to setup simh on it.   I could be a massive
      routing hub
      if people wanted to connect their tunnels to me.

      -brian
      --
      "Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta
      tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard
      full of
      pop tarts and pancake mix." -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435)




-- 
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