[AG-TECH] NCSA unicast bridge changes

George Estes gestes at ncsa.uiuc.edu
Mon Apr 10 15:32:14 CDT 2006


   Roebridge was always a backup bridge, put in place when we were having 
problems with venuesbridge.  And since venuesbridge seems to be working 
fine we have taken roebridge off line.  Please consider, knock on wood, 
this to be the permanent bridge configuration.


At 02:16 PM 4/10/2006, Nagykaldi, Zsolt F. (HSC) wrote:
>Anybody knows if recent NCSA venue bridge changes (roebridge is gone, 
>accessbridge is on) are temporary or pretty much permanent? Thanks.
>_ _ _
>Zsolt Nagykaldi, PhD
>Research Associate, Clinical IT Specialist
>University Of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
>Department Of Family And Preventive Medicine
>Oklahoma Center For Family Medicine Research
>900 NE 10th Street
>Oklahoma City, OK 73104
>Phone: (405) 271-8000 Ext.:1-32212
>Fax:     (405) 271-1682
>From: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov on behalf of Andrew A Rowley
>Sent: Fri 4/7/2006 3:00 AM
>To: Masullo, Chris F; ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
>Subject: RE: [AG-TECH] Firewall and unicast questions
>I know of various places that are running AG from behind a firewall using 
>both multicast and unicast.
>Using unicast means that you add strain to the bridge for the 
>venue.  However, I have not seen any bridges fail under strain so far 
>(others may have seen this).  The other problem with unicast and firewalls 
>is the port numbers.  The bridges will be assigned random port numbers 
>within a fixed range, so the only way to guarantee that you will be able 
>to use the bridge is to open up the entire range.  This range will depend 
>on the venue server.  Of course with dynamic multicast venues, you would 
>have the same problem, however, with static venues, you could at least 
>open the fixed port numbers in use.  AG Connector can also help with the 
>port number problem, since it only uses a single fixed port.
>The only other problem I have seen with firewalls, is when the firewall 
>cannot cope with the amount of traffic passing with large AG meetings.  It 
>is worth finding out what bandwidth the firewall can cope with if you 
>regularly join large meetings.
>Andrew :)
>Access Grid Support Centre,
>RSS Group,
>Manchester Computing,
>Kilburn Building,
>University of Manchester,
>Oxford Road,
>M13 9PL,
>Tel: +44(0)161-275 0685
>Email: Andrew.Rowley at manchester.ac.uk
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov 
> [<mailto:owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov>mailto:owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov] On
> > Behalf Of Masullo, Chris F
> > Sent: 06 April 2006 17:04
> > To: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
> > Subject: [AG-TECH] Firewall and unicast questions
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > We currently have our AG nodes outside our firewall, however cyber
> > security
> > has told us that we need to move the systems inside our firewall.  The
> > last
> > time I brought up this issue a number of years ago I was told that
> > multicast
> > would not get past our firewall. I have some questions regarding this
> > issue.
> >
> > Has anyone successfully placed an AG VTC system behind a Cisco Firewall?
> > Are there any issues using unicast mode for and AG node behind a
> > firewall?
> > If not then why not run unicast?
> >
> > I have looked through the mailer however I do not see any answers to
> > these
> > Questions.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris Masullo                     Information Technology Division
> > Brookhaven National Laboratory    Network Engineering & Operations
> > 61 Brookhaven Ave.                Phone:  (631) 344-2326
> > Upton, NY 11973                   Fax:    (631) 344-7688
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/ag-tech/attachments/20060410/66085539/attachment.htm>

More information about the ag-tech mailing list