[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

Title:	DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:	Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:	TAEC::BEROUD

Created:	Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:	Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	6497
Total number of notes:	27359

619.0. "Using DECmcc in NS1 for managing Phase V nodes in NS2" by MONNET::NAM () Fri Jan 11 1991 12:45

Hi
CERN is currently FT for Phase V and DECmcc. Today they already have a name
space which is not yet stable and they re-define it time to time part of the
phase V FT.

Starting with DECmcc their are asking :

a) Installing DECmcc in the same name space as Phase V nodes. This would mean
   having a station with DNS clerck 1.1 talking to DNS V 2.0 running on the
   Ultrix V 4.0 node which down line load the OSIrouter.

b) Installing DECmcc in other separate name space but specifying the IDP of
   the network for which they use Phase V. This scenario has the advantage
   of not mixing at the beginning the registration of nodes using NCL and MCC.
   It has also the advantage if for some reason they have to re-define the
   Phase V name space, the management software can still be operationnal.

The question :

 Is it possible to register and manage phase V nodes which are in a different 
 name space from the DECmcc station running phase IV. (just copying the file
 DNS$DEFAULT_FILE.DAT from the DNS server V 2.0 if this kind of file does 
 exist from a DNS server Ultrix V 4.0 based)


Michel JAGGI
Field Support
St-Suplice CH

T.R Title User Personal
Name Date Lines

619.1 dns,Phasev, & MCC CLAUDI::PETERS Fri Jan 18 1991 09:55 28

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
619.1	dns,Phasev, & MCC	CLAUDI::PETERS		`Fri Jan 18 1991 09:55`	28
	Yes you can use difference namespaces by appending the the DNS$DEFAULT_FILE.DAT as appropriate ... but you probably don't want to. You are better off keeping one namespace. Mixed V1.1 & V2.0 DNS's really do work together, except don't try to create a DNS DIR on a V1.1 server, add a replica to the V2.0 and then rebuild the master replica onto the V2.0 node (the rebuild sometimes trashes the update timestamps and the dir won't skulk properly after that ... this should be fixed in the next DNS update). Creating dir's and replicas is fine as long as you don't reassign who the master is. Or simply make all DNS servers V2.0 servers, DECmcc does not require a server on the DECmcc station itself, just 'on' the network. DECmcc and Phase V use the same DNA_BackTranslation dir tree and DNA_NodeSynonym tree and the tools with Phase V and with DECmcc are fairly carefully synched to 'do the right thing'. At any rate, the reason to use the same namespace is because Phase V session control is the only thing that can update the DNA$STowers attribute in DNS and create a backtranslation softlink. DECmcc can not do that on behalf of a PV node, hence that information will be missing from the namespace which is used by DECmcc. Management of the full Phase V node will be incomplete if seperate namespaces are used. You're better off creating a set of command files to reload DNS if you need to make changes. Note that registering the nodes via the PHase V node registration procedure is not the same a registration via DECmcc. DECmcc adds lots of attributes that are not used by Phase V. Your best bet is to register via DECmcc and then you can skip the Phase V procedure and session control on the Phase V node will handle it's own 'keep-me-here' and update the addresses. /Claudia

Yes you can use difference namespaces by appending the the DNS$DEFAULT_FILE.DAT
as appropriate ... but you probably don't want to.  You are better off keeping
one namespace.  Mixed V1.1 & V2.0 DNS's really do work together, except don't
try to create a DNS DIR on a V1.1 server, add a replica to the V2.0 and then
rebuild the master replica onto the V2.0 node (the rebuild sometimes trashes the 
update timestamps and the dir won't skulk properly after that ... this should
be fixed in the next DNS update).  Creating dir's and replicas is fine as 
long as you don't reassign who the master is.  Or simply make all DNS servers
V2.0 servers, DECmcc does not require a server on the DECmcc station itself,
just 'on' the network.

DECmcc and Phase V use the same DNA_BackTranslation dir tree and DNA_NodeSynonym
tree and the tools with Phase V and with DECmcc are fairly carefully synched to 
'do the right thing'.   At any rate, the reason to use the same namespace is 
because Phase V session control is the only thing that can update the 
DNA$STowers attribute in DNS and create a backtranslation softlink.  DECmcc 
can not do that on behalf of a PV node, hence that information will be 
missing from the namespace which is used by DECmcc.  Management of the full 
Phase V node will be incomplete if seperate namespaces are used.  You're better
off creating a set of command files to reload DNS if you need to make changes.  

Note that registering the nodes via the PHase V node registration procedure
is not the same a registration via DECmcc.   DECmcc adds lots of attributes
that are not used by Phase V.  Your best bet is to register via DECmcc and
then you can skip the Phase V procedure and session control on the Phase V
node will handle it's own 'keep-me-here' and update the addresses.   

/Claudia