[HECnet] LAT question

[Steve Davidson]

Sampsa,

Once they connect they can do a traceroute, get their address and pass it along
to whomever at the other end.   The configuration for either the bridge or
Multinet is trivial.   You can preconfigure the bridge and comment it out until
a valid address is known, and with Multinet you can preconfigure the entry with
a bogus entry (address invalid only) and apply the change when you have it.   A
quick reboot and you are all done.

Do you think that their address will change more than once during this short
event?

-Steve



Well static and static, but I mean there must be an IP address for   
configuration of our side as the original MULTINET stack's UDP tunnel   
does not to DNS lookups...

Sampsa

On 13 Jun 2010, at 16:07, Steve Davidson wrote:

Actually, for this short duration, who cares about a static   
address.   Fred and
I use dedicated VS4000/VLC's as Multinet tunnel routers.   We reboot as
necessary and ignore everyone's complaints.   SG1 actually has a   
script that
deals with some of this automatically.   If I have time today I may   
even finish
it.   It deals with the burden of changing the address entry in   
Multinet and
reboots.   Total turn-around is under 5 minutes, actually more like 3   
minutes.

I noticed that Johnny has made changes to the bridge.   I do not have   
these
changes.   My version is different than his to begin with.   Fred and   
I run
my version but it could probably use Johnny's fixes.   I'm now   
wondering if
some of the "surprises" we have been running into have to do with   
these
"fixes".   Do either of you know?   I have not approached Johnny about   
getting
these changes.

-Steve



Yup, that's correct.

Now we will need a static IP to make this work, unless we set up my
end on a Linux box - the MULTINET Linux port knows how to look up
hostnames, the original VMS one needs a static IP.

Steve is right about the bridge and LAT however, we COULD set up the
bridge as a backup and try the MULTINET tunnel as a primary method of
connection.

Sampsa


On 13 Jun 2010, at 07:50, Mark Wickens wrote:

I've been talking to Steve Davidson and it crossed my mind that if   
we
use multinet to connect we won't need a separate unix box as we
wouldn't
require Johnny's bridge. Is that correct? Might be worth going   
through
the motions if you have time, (a) to get the process documented and
(b)
to provide a good fallback strategy if option 1 using the bridge to
connect through to you doesn't work.

Regards, Mark.