[HECnet] VPN?

[neozeed]

Thankfully I had 2 sets of floppy disks.. or this would have been really hard to come by...

Anyways I don't see why you can't use my 10 user version to test..

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1694005/Novell%20Netware%203.12%2010%20user.rar

When I set it up I used Qemu 0.9.0 with a 'patch' that I had done to use SIMH's libpcap networking...   I *think* the newer Qemu's do tap/tun support?

Also hecnet would need to be modified to allow the various frame types for netware... I can dig that out some more once I get netware installed.... I'll try the 0.11 stuff first but with the -M isa for the ISA ne2000 adapter...

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> 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

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> 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)