L2TPv3 Cisco and LAT Protocol ?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Mag, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. Mag

    Mag Guest

    Hi

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

    Thanks
    mag
    Mag, Mar 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mag

    bod43 Guest

    On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <> 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:)
    bod43, Mar 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, bod43 <> writes:
    >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <> 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?"
    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG, Mar 10, 2009
    #3
  4. Mag

    bod43 Guest

    On 10 Mar, 11:48, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article <>, bod43 <> writes:
    >
    > >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <> 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.
    bod43, Mar 10, 2009
    #4
  5. In article <>, bod43 <> writes:
    >On 10 Mar, 11:48, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> In article <.=

    >com>, bod43 <> writes:
    >>
    >> >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <> 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?"
    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG, Mar 10, 2009
    #5
  6. Mag

    bod43 Guest

    On 10 Mar, 22:13, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article <..com>, bod43 <> writes:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On 10 Mar, 11:48, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > >> In article <.=

    > >com>, bod43 <> writes:

    >
    > >> >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <> 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!
    bod43, Mar 11, 2009
    #6
  7. In article <>, bod43 <> writes:
    >On 10 Mar, 22:13, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> In article <=

    >..com>, bod43 <> writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On 10 Mar, 11:48, VAXman- = wrote:
    >> >> In article <=

    >ps.=3D
    >> >com>, bod43 <> writes:

    >>
    >> >> >On 9 Mar, 06:39, Mag <> 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?"
    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG, Mar 11, 2009
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bCBN?=

    keeps losing my wireless connection linksys WRT54GS dell lat d600

    =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bCBN?=, Oct 29, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    35,704
    =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bCBNYXJ0ZWw=?=
    Oct 29, 2004
  2. news.eircom.net

    LAT Access List

    news.eircom.net, Nov 27, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    436
    frans brinkman
    Nov 29, 2003
  3. phyllis

    lat\ptop

    phyllis, Dec 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    516
    Old Gringo
    Dec 25, 2004
  4. Cynicor

    Lat/long tagging software

    Cynicor, Aug 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    568
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Aug 15, 2006
  5. Tim Thompson

    Telnet to LAT rotary?

    Tim Thompson, Feb 20, 2007, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    382
    Tim Thompson
    Feb 21, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page