Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > L2TPv3 Cisco and LAT Protocol ?

Reply
Thread Tools

L2TPv3 Cisco and LAT Protocol ?

 
 
Mag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2009
Hi

anyone know if a L2TPv3 tunnel on two cisco can support
LAT Trafic ?

Thanks
mag
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bod43
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2009
On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hi
>
> anyone know if a L2TPv3 tunnel on two cisco can support
> LAT Trafic ?


Would be rather surprising if it did not. I would though
want to do an evaluation before spending a lot of money.
There can be very, very few people using LAT now so
you could always run into some bug or other.

If the routers terminating the tunnels were also running
DEC protocols I would be especially wary.

Out of interest what are you using LAT for? It was already
substantially obsolete when I first heard of it in about 1996



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> anyone know if a L2TPv3 tunnel on two cisco can support
>> LAT Trafic ?

>
>Would be rather surprising if it did not. I would though
>want to do an evaluation before spending a lot of money.
>There can be very, very few people using LAT now so
>you could always run into some bug or other.


Will this look like it is bridged? LAT isn't routable. Unless
L2TPv3 config makes the routers involved transparent to the LANs
involved, I wouldn't think you be too successful.


>If the routers terminating the tunnels were also running
>DEC protocols I would be especially wary.


Why?


>Out of interest what are you using LAT for? It was already
>substantially obsolete when I first heard of it in about 1996


Local Area Transport. It wasn't devised for WAN communications;
it was devised to be a lightweight, efficient, local area trans-
port. I use it for X11 on the local lan; also, for terminal and
serial devices. I maintained a device driver for some telecom-
munications switching gear that was using LAT for device control
too.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Today's commodities market: Snake Oil: $787B/bbl

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
 
Reply With Quote
 
bod43
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2009
On 10 Mar, 11:48, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Hi

>
> >> anyone know if a L2TPv3 tunnel on two cisco can support
> >> LAT Trafic ?

>
> >Would be rather surprising if it did not. I would though
> >want to do an evaluation before spending a lot of money.
> >There can be very, very few people using LAT now so
> >you could always run into some bug or other.

>
> Will this look like it is bridged? *LAT isn't routable. *Unless
> L2TPv3 config makes the routers involved transparent to the LANs
> involved, I wouldn't think you be too successful.


Just to be clear I don't consider myself very strong on
this area but there does not seem to be anyone else
so I thought I would try.

My understanding is that L2TPv3 produces not even a
bridge but a (virtual) wire.


> >If the routers terminating the tunnels were also running
> >DEC protocols I would be especially wary.

>
> Why?


Consider the case of CDP.
If a port running L2TP was to receive a CDP packet
what should it do with it? Should it deliver the frame to
the CPU for CDP processing of transport it over the link?

There are two answers to this.
1. If you are a custome and you expect a service provider to
deliver a wire then you want the CDP to pass over the link.
2. If you are say using L2TP within your own network you might
just want local resolution of CDP.

I am not sure but I suspect that behaviour 2 is what happens.

I was concerned that a similar dichotomy might be presented
to the DEC stack developers or that some oversight might
be possible. In view of the small number of likely users of
LAT on L2TP it seemed not unlikely that any bugs would
remain undiscovered for some time.

Ah yes! I have just remembered. I think you can
manage (telnet to - sorry) a router with MOP. I
completely forget how that relates to LAT. Hence
my caution.

All the DEC stuff may have gone now of course. Don't know -
and don't care really)


> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker


Well, I predict in increasing level of boredom in the future
Although of course in some sense VMS (or its wayward
daughter?) is probably the most widely used operating
system on the planet today.


What I am saying is that I think that this will work
but that you should try it out.

 
Reply With Quote
 
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>On 10 Mar, 11:48, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed).=

>com>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>> >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> Hi

>>
>> >> anyone know if a L2TPv3 tunnel on two cisco can support
>> >> LAT Trafic ?

>>
>> >Would be rather surprising if it did not. I would though
>> >want to do an evaluation before spending a lot of money.
>> >There can be very, very few people using LAT now so
>> >you could always run into some bug or other.

>>
>> Will this look like it is bridged? =A0LAT isn't routable. =A0Unless
>> L2TPv3 config makes the routers involved transparent to the LANs
>> involved, I wouldn't think you be too successful.

>
>Just to be clear I don't consider myself very strong on
>this area but there does not seem to be anyone else
>so I thought I would try.
>
>My understanding is that L2TPv3 produces not even a
>bridge but a (virtual) wire.


If the MAC (Ethernet addresses) can be visible, there's hope.



>> >If the routers terminating the tunnels were also running
>> >DEC protocols I would be especially wary.

>>
>> Why?

>
>Consider the case of CDP.
>If a port running L2TP was to receive a CDP packet
>what should it do with it? Should it deliver the frame to
>the CPU for CDP processing of transport it over the link?
>
>There are two answers to this.
>1. If you are a custome and you expect a service provider to
>deliver a wire then you want the CDP to pass over the link.
>2. If you are say using L2TP within your own network you might
>just want local resolution of CDP.
>
>I am not sure but I suspect that behaviour 2 is what happens.
>
>I was concerned that a similar dichotomy might be presented
>to the DEC stack developers or that some oversight might
>be possible. In view of the small number of likely users of
>LAT on L2TP it seemed not unlikely that any bugs would
>remain undiscovered for some time.
>
>Ah yes! I have just remembered. I think you can
>manage (telnet to - sorry) a router with MOP. I
>completely forget how that relates to LAT. Hence
>my caution.


MOP is in the DECnet stack. Under Phase IV, the routing was accomplished
by changing the MAC address AA-00-04-00-XX-YY where XX:YY were computed as
a function of the DECnet area and node number. AB-... was a broadcast.
MOP function code is 06-01/02


>> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker

>
>Well, I predict in increasing level of boredom in the future


I'm plenty busy.


>Although of course in some sense VMS (or its wayward
>daughter?) is probably the most widely used operating
>system on the planet today.


Wayward daughter? RSX?


--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Today's commodities market: Snake Oil: $787B/bbl

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
 
Reply With Quote
 
bod43
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2009
On 10 Mar, 22:13, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)..com>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 10 Mar, 11:48, VAXman- *@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed).=

> >com>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>
> >> >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >> Hi

>
> >> >> anyone know if a L2TPv3 tunnel on two cisco can support
> >> >> LAT Trafic ?

>
> >> >Would be rather surprising if it did not. I would though
> >> >want to do an evaluation before spending a lot of money.
> >> >There can be very, very few people using LAT now so
> >> >you could always run into some bug or other.

>
> >> Will this look like it is bridged? =A0LAT isn't routable. =A0Unless
> >> L2TPv3 config makes the routers involved transparent to the LANs
> >> involved, I wouldn't think you be too successful.

>
> >Just to be clear I don't consider myself very strong on
> >this area but there does not seem to be anyone else
> >so I thought I would try.

>
> >My understanding is that L2TPv3 produces not even a
> >bridge but a (virtual) wire.

>
> If the MAC (Ethernet addresses) can be visible, there's hope.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >If the routers terminating the tunnels were also running
> >> >DEC protocols I would be especially wary.

>
> >> Why?

>
> >Consider the case of CDP.
> >If a port running L2TP was to receive a CDP packet
> >what should it do with it? Should it deliver the frame to
> >the CPU for CDP processing of transport it over the link?

>
> >There are two answers to this.
> >1. If you are a custome and you expect a service provider to
> >deliver a wire then you want the CDP to pass over the link.
> >2. If you are say using L2TP within your own network you might
> >just want local resolution of CDP.

>
> >I am not sure but I suspect that behaviour 2 is what happens.

>
> >I was concerned that a similar dichotomy might be presented
> >to the DEC stack developers or that some oversight might
> >be possible. In view of the small number of likely users of
> >LAT on L2TP it seemed not unlikely that any bugs would
> >remain undiscovered for some time.

>
> >Ah yes! I have just remembered. I think you can
> >manage (telnet to - sorry) a router with MOP. I
> >completely forget how that relates to LAT. Hence
> >my caution.

>
> MOP is in the DECnet stack. *Under Phase IV, the routing was accomplished
> by changing the MAC address AA-00-04-00-XX-YY where XX:YY were computed as
> a function of the DECnet area and node number. *AB-... was a broadcast.
> MOP function code is 06-01/02
>
> >> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker

>
> >Well, I predict in increasing level of boredom in the future

>
> I'm plenty busy.


I have heard of some IBM type people being paid obscene
amounts of money to support obsolete systems (TCAM?).
There seems a decent chance of an action replay with VMS.

Good luck anyway.

>
> >Although of course in some sense VMS (or its wayward
> >daughter?) is probably the most widely used operating
> >system on the planet today.

>
> Wayward daughter? *RSX?


I was thinking of NT and its descendants.

I understand that Microsoft hired the VMS architect
from DEC and that he was responsible for NT. I forget
his name. Cutler or something like that.
Dear god, googles and I was right!

 
Reply With Quote
 
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>On 10 Mar, 22:13, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)=

>..com>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 10 Mar, 11:48, VAXman- =(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)=

>ps.=3D
>> >com>, bod43 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>>
>> >> >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >> Hi

>>
>> >> >> anyone know if a L2TPv3 tunnel on two cisco can support
>> >> >> LAT Trafic ?

>>
>> >> >Would be rather surprising if it did not. I would though
>> >> >want to do an evaluation before spending a lot of money.
>> >> >There can be very, very few people using LAT now so
>> >> >you could always run into some bug or other.

>>
>> >> Will this look like it is bridged? =3DA0LAT isn't routable. =3DA0Unles=

>s
>> >> L2TPv3 config makes the routers involved transparent to the LANs
>> >> involved, I wouldn't think you be too successful.

>>
>> >Just to be clear I don't consider myself very strong on
>> >this area but there does not seem to be anyone else
>> >so I thought I would try.

>>
>> >My understanding is that L2TPv3 produces not even a
>> >bridge but a (virtual) wire.

>>
>> If the MAC (Ethernet addresses) can be visible, there's hope.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >If the routers terminating the tunnels were also running
>> >> >DEC protocols I would be especially wary.

>>
>> >> Why?

>>
>> >Consider the case of CDP.
>> >If a port running L2TP was to receive a CDP packet
>> >what should it do with it? Should it deliver the frame to
>> >the CPU for CDP processing of transport it over the link?

>>
>> >There are two answers to this.
>> >1. If you are a custome and you expect a service provider to
>> >deliver a wire then you want the CDP to pass over the link.
>> >2. If you are say using L2TP within your own network you might
>> >just want local resolution of CDP.

>>
>> >I am not sure but I suspect that behaviour 2 is what happens.

>>
>> >I was concerned that a similar dichotomy might be presented
>> >to the DEC stack developers or that some oversight might
>> >be possible. In view of the small number of likely users of
>> >LAT on L2TP it seemed not unlikely that any bugs would
>> >remain undiscovered for some time.

>>
>> >Ah yes! I have just remembered. I think you can
>> >manage (telnet to - sorry) a router with MOP. I
>> >completely forget how that relates to LAT. Hence
>> >my caution.

>>
>> MOP is in the DECnet stack. =A0Under Phase IV, the routing was accomplish=

>ed
>> by changing the MAC address AA-00-04-00-XX-YY where XX:YY were computed a=

>s
>> a function of the DECnet area and node number. =A0AB-... was a broadcast.
>> MOP function code is 06-01/02
>>
>> >> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker

>>
>> >Well, I predict in increasing level of boredom in the future

>>
>> I'm plenty busy.

>
>I have heard of some IBM type people being paid obscene
>amounts of money to support obsolete systems (TCAM?).
>There seems a decent chance of an action replay with VMS.
>
>Good luck anyway.


You're funny.


>> >Although of course in some sense VMS (or its wayward
>> >daughter?) is probably the most widely used operating
>> >system on the planet today.

>>
>> Wayward daughter? =A0RSX?

>
>I was thinking of NT and its descendants.


To associate the crap that is WEENDOZE with the elegance that
is VMS is insulting.


>I understand that Microsoft hired the VMS architect
>from DEC and that he was responsible for NT. I forget
>his name. Cutler or something like that.
>Dear god, googles and I was right!


David Cutler and it was only to give M$ crap some semblance of
being a real OS. We all know better now, don't we.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cisco 1721/3745 L2TPv3 and Local IP interface ? Mag Cisco 1 02-11-2009 02:41 AM
Cartesian to lat and lon Andrew Rich Perl Misc 3 09-08-2008 07:54 PM
Configuring L2TPv3 on Cisco Devices bla70bla@bluewin.ch Cisco 0 05-12-2005 07:31 PM
keeps losing my wireless connection linksys WRT54GS dell lat d600 =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bCBN?= Wireless Networking 2 10-29-2004 03:43 PM
Convert coordinates XY into LAT-LONG steeve.nadeau@mobilair.qc.ca Perl 1 11-04-2003 08:20 PM



Advertisments