HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rbourass@isis.cs.du.edu (Richard Bourassa)
Subject: Microsoft LAN Manager 2.1 Network Printing Options?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 04:12:25 GMT


Can anyone help?
I have recently upgraded a few servers in our 3 continent/5 site network.
Originally, we ran 3Com 3+Open 1.1f with LanSpool 2.x network print
servers.  This worked fine.  We then upgraded to Lanspool 3.0.  Still
workd fine.  We just upgraded to LAN Manager 2.1.  NOT fine anymore!!!
Printers dying right and left.  Rigged it presently by keeping a 3+Open
server to just run the printers.  This is not acceptable, as it ties
us to an already defunct system (3+Open).  I have been through all the
tech support lines and no one has a clue.  I have had enough with LanSpool
and would like suggestions for competing products.  All help is
greatfully accepted.



1) What products are available to provide network printing with LAN
Manager 2.1 on a worldwide/bridged network with dedicated links
as low as 56k baud?
2) What experiences have you had with any suggested products?
3) Has anyone got NetBEUI running successfully accross a 56k digital
bridge link?  (I had to patch in 3Com's NBP!!!)

Vendor responses are welcome and encouraged!  (Anyone want some of
Intel's LanSpool business???:-)

Thanks for any help!
Please respond via E-Mail
Rich
rbourass@isis.cs.du.edu

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Connecting two machines without an "Ether"
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:31:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr8.152808.1@ucs.adelaide.edu.au> tcross@ucs.adelaide.edu.au writes:
> It should be possible to connect a cable between the two machines connecting
>only the tx+ tx- rx+ rx- signals...
>Collision should not be a problem between two machines also if it is over
>a short distance unshielded twisted pair will do the trick.

Collision *is* a problem, unfortunately.  For one thing, any Ethernet
interface that wants to see the "heartbeat" signal will immediately
conclude that its transceiver is broken.  For another, if the two machines
try to transmit simultaneously, odd things may happen -- not all Ethernet
interfaces are full-duplex, and sometimes they aren't prepared to see
incoming data different from outgoing data without a collision.

It might sort of kind of work, if you aren't looking for reliability
and get lucky on the characteristics of your Ethernet interfaces.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: pat@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Pat Thaler)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:22:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
From: eengelke@sail.uwaterloo.ca (Erick Engelke)
Subject: Re: TCP/IP and NetBios Drivers
Keywords: TCP/IP, NetBios
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:09:55 GMT

yoram@FibHaifa.com writes:

>
>Recently I heard that you can not run TCP/IP or NetBios on 
>a PC using a standard Ethernat interface card and a driver 
>at a speed beyond 1 Mbps.  

The limit is closer to 1 MBps in theory or 20-80% of that in 
practice. On my freeware TCP stack I get about 550 kBps with 
a 16 bit card ftping to NUL.  There are several places which 
could still do with some optimization but the inherent limits 
of the PC ISA bus make 100% utilization pretty darn hard.

Erick

-- 
Erick Engelke					  Engineering Computing
						 University of Waterloo
Waterloo TCP Architect		 erick@development.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG)
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:39:02 GMT

In article <35011@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> dave@racer.lkg.dec.com writes:
>>	Actually, it is the 4 repeater rule.
>
>Actually, the rule is:
>
>	Allowable topologies shall contain only one signal path between
>any two points on the network.  A maximum of four Repeater Sets may be in
>the signal path between any two stations on the network.  When four Repeater
>Sets are used in any signal path, the path shall include two link segemnts.
>If three Repeater Sets are used in any signal path, there shall be one link
>segment in the signal path.
>
Thanks for the quote, is it from the spec itself? 
>
>Link segments are, basically, fiber between two repeaters.  The old

From my understanding link segments, we call the interepeater links, can
be 1)coax with no workstations, 2)twisted pair or 3)fiber.
Note that with twisted pair and fiber it is not possible to have workstations
attached.  In the original question he said he was dealing with twisted pair.

This is an interepeater link:
  repeater-------------------------------repeater

This is not an interepeater link:
  repeater-------------|------------------repeater
                       |
                       |
                  workstation


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: whinery@nancy.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Alan Whinery)
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:06:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.201018.15214@cattnts> craig@cattnts (Craig Campbell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.031822.1128@news.Hawaii.Edu> whinery@nancy.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Alan Whinery) writes:
>>More than a rule of thumb, that. It is part of the 802.3 spec.
>
>>You're going down a dark dead-end alley here.
>
>>Since most hubs come with a number of 10BaseT connections and one connection
>>to another medium (either a BNC for 10Base2 thinnet or an AUI port for 
>>a transceiver), you can avoid the whole issue by running coax from hub to 
>>hub and not stacking hubs. We have several places on our campus where 
>>there are a high concentration of 10BaseT users, and there has never been
>>a reason to go more than one hub deep. Just take a thin coax segment, 
>
>I am unclear how this is a) an improvement or b) makes any difference.

First a repeater and a hub are the same thing, just in case anyone
didn't catch that.  Given the nature of network growth (usually by 
orders of magnitude)  it pays to plan at the beginning for growth.
Each and every repeater you put a signal through introduces two 
things onto your signal -- 1) a Delay 2)Noise -- each of which 
degrades the signals ability to traverse wide distances effectively.

Thin coax is 1) a much better signal path than twisted pair, able to
go almost twice as far as an ethernet plus 2) you can put 29 stations
on a thin coax segment, vs 1 on a twisted pair segment. Thus, coax,
though slightly more expensive is much more valuable once installed.

If you reduce the number of 10BaseT hubs to MAC conversion points,
ideally you can have all of your stations no more than one repeater
away from the backbone, upon which you can place a server. 

Routine tinkertoy cascading of hubs is bad design, it will eventually lead 
to too many repeaters, and there is virtually no excuse for it.

If you are reduced to calculating repeater delays to judge whether 
you've got too many, you made some fundamental mistakes in the initial
design of the network. There are standards so that you can tell what will 
work without trying to fudge it all of the time.

>-- 
>Craig Campbell		|	These opinions are entirely the result of a 
>Systems Engineer	|	small butterfly crashing into the far side
>NCR Canada,		|	of the planet.  Chaos Rules.
>an AT&T Company		|	I speak for no one, except, possibly, myself.


--
D. Alan Whinery, Computer Networks Engineer |
The University of Hawaii at Manoa           |  networks@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
2565 The Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822           |  whinery@nancy.uhcc.hawaii.edu
(808)956-6430    FAX (808)956-2412          |
From: thomas@mipsbx.lkg.dec.com (Matt Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Decnet/MOP across bridge?
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:27:54 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment

In article <1992Apr9.131511.1958@yogi.hsc.ucalgary.ca> byron@yogi.hsc.ucalgary.ca writes:
>I have an NCD X terminal on an ethernet segment that I wish to boot via Dec's
>MOP protocol, from a VMS-based VAX on a different ethernet segment.  The two
>segments are connected via a bridge (PCbridge).  Booting via MOP will not work
>across the bridge.  A quick look at a PC ethernet monitor shows no ethernet
>packets from the NCD terminal are getting across the bridge.  All works well
>when I replace the bridge with a repeator (as expected).  My question is:
>
>Why can't a MOP type packet pass across an ethernet bridge?

The question is 'why isn't the bridge forwarding the MOP/DECnet packet?'.
I suspect a configuration error with the PC-Bridge.

The site in wihch I worked is heavily bridged and DECnet, MOP, LAT, IP, ARP,
CLNS, ... have no problem getting bridged (to/from FDDI & Ethernet). 

Matt Thomas                     Internet:   thomas@lkg.dec.com
DECnet-ULTRIX Development       UUCP:       ...!decwrl!thomas
Digital Equipment Corporation   Disclaimer: This message reflects my own
Littleton, MA                               warped views, etc.
From: Shawn.Hayes@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Shawn Hayes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: What hardware to detect problems?
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:52:18 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


	Hi.  I've been asked to find out what would help us to detect and
correct problems that occur with our ethenet.  I'm looking for products
that can help us detect hardware problems such as missing terminators
or shorts in the cable, and I'd like to hear of products that can help
detect problems at the protocol level.   Currently we have an entirely
10Base2 system running TCP/IP.  In the future I expect we will add 
connections to a 10Base5 network and a 10BaseT network which will have
both TCP/IP and the Netware software (IPX Protocol?). 

	I expect the best products to use will be some form of a protocol
analyzer and some type of a TDR.  Any experiences or recommendations (and 
prices if known) will be extremely welcome.  

Thanks.

Shawn Hayes
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: Michael A. Patton <MAP@LCS.MIT.Edu>
Subject: Re: Ethernet protocol info
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
	<1992Apr6.141111.1659@isunix.cdx.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:16:38 GMT

This looks mostly like a reformatted copy of an old version of my
listing.  The most recent copy of mine (with somewhat more entries) is
always available for anonymous FTP from FTP.LCS.MIT.EDU in directory
pub/map, file EtherNet-codes.

            __
  /|  /|  /|  \         Michael A. Patton, Network Manager
 / | / | /_|__/         Laboratory for Computer Science
/  |/  |/  |atton       Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.lans.ethernet:569 comp.dcom.lans.misc:205
From: rcgj@urc.tue.nl
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.dcom.lans.misc
Subject: Experience with 3Com Netbuilder II ?.
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:24:59 GMT
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hi,

At the moment we are planning to buy some multiport Ethernet bridges.

During the selection phase we came across the 3Com Netbuilder II. 

This is a new product, shipping began last month, but uptil now we 
haven't found anyone who has some experience with it or know some 
details, like performance, about it.

So, if you have experience with it or know some details about it,
please respond.


Thanks in advance,

GeertJaap Scherpenzeel

Eindhoven University of Technology             Internet : rcgj@urc.tue.nl
Computer Centre  RC 1.24                       BITNET   : RCGJ@HEITUE5
P.O.Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven                 Voice    : +31 (40) 474583
The Netherlands                                Fax      : +31 (40) 434438
From: riffraff.gi.alaska.edu (craig helmuth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Duplicate ethernet addresses!
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:47:01 GMT
Reply-To: craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu
Organization: Geophysical Institute

A caution to those poor souls troubleshooting ethernets, we have just
found a 'gotcha' that I hope nobody else has to find...

I was watching our ethernet with a packet capture utility (EtherPeek) and
over the course of a couple of weeks noticed that one ethernet address
(the six byte hardware address [that only DEC has the gumption to mess
with, but thats another story...]) was 'migrating' between different
IP addresses.

Well, users being what they are, I figured our grad students were
'sharing' an X-windows terminal or were swapping out pc interface cards
for kicks.  Well two days ago I caught two IP addresses using the same
ethernet address at (more or less) the same time.  I asked our
UN*X gurus if he knew what was going on...

After a little digging, it seems we have three X-windows terminals from
Visual Technologies Inc., model Visual-14/ES, that all have identical
ethernet addresses of 00:00:22:00:13:8f!

Visual is sending new EPROMS...

Has anyone else ever seen this?  After all the time and effort to try
and keep things unique, I was loath to assume the worst, but no more!
Or is this a FAQ-of-life, or worse yet, are we totally befuddled?!


Craig Helmuth, Network Manager  |  craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu
         Geophysical Institute  |  fncah@alaska.bitnet
University of Alaska Fairbanks  |  "Its all FANTASY...until its HISTORY"
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 13:11:14 EDT
From: Randy Carraghan <RMC100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: 8-bit vs 16-bit Ethernet Cards

What would a ball-park estimate be of the speed gained by using 16-bit cards
instead of 8-bit in a 10BaseT environment, ISA architecture, 16 node network?
I can get 3Com EtherLink 8-bit cards for 1/2 the price of their 16-bit cards,
and was not sure if the cost was justified.  The other advantage of the 8-bit
cards would be that the computer lab currently has a lot of XT's which are
gradually being phased out by 486's, and the 8-bit cards could be used for
either machine.  How about for the file server (Gateway 486/33 EISA) - I
assume if any card needs to be fast, it would be for this machine.  Would an
EISA card be overkill (for Ethernet) or would a 16-bit card suffice?

Thanks for any help...

Randy
From: pablo@FibHaifa.com (Pablo Brenner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Ethernet protocol info
Date: 6 Apr 92 06:03:38 GMT
Reply-To: pablo@picasso.FibHaifa.com
Organization: Fibronics ltd., Haifa - ISRAEL
Originator: pablo@vivaldi


In article <4APR199211221616@utasys.uta.edu>, zureick@utasys.uta.edu (Rami Zureick) writes:
|> Does anyone know what protocols are the following?
|> 
|>       00-42
|>       00-62
|>       00-64
|>       00-2A
|>       00-30
|>       00-3B
|>       02-20

If you are talking about Ethernet type, any value lower than 1500=0x5dc
is 802.3 length and not a specific protocol.


|> 
|> Thanks in advance.
|> 
|> Rami Zureick
|> Univ of Texas at Arlington
|> ==========================

Welcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Brenner
R&D Dept.
Fibronics Ltd., Matam Industrial Park, Haifa 31905, ISRAEL
phones: +972-4-313675            Fax: +972-4-536360
e-mail: pablo@FibHaifa.com   or  pablo@fibronics.UUCP
---------------------------------------------------------------
=============== Usual disclaimers apply =======================
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.lans.ethernet:618 comp.sys.sun.misc:1952
From: hage@netcom.com (Carl Hage)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Connecting two machines without an "Ether"
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:55:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.0vzjzhh.hage
Organization: C. Hage Associates

thomas@duteca2.et.tudelft.nl (Thomas Okken) writes:
: I want to connect two machines with thick-ethernet ports. 

My advice is to "bite the bullet" and buy 2 transponders, a couple of
cheap terminators and a little bit of coax. You will be glad a year
from now when you add a third system.

The thin coax trancievers don't need a hub, and the extra cost (if any)
is small for expandable and reusable equipment.

I received a card in the mail from Allied Telesis, 575 E. Middlefield Rd.,
Mountain View, CA 94043, 800-424-4284, Fax:415-964-1598, who advertized
thin coax trancievers for $79.95 (10BaseT was $69.95). You might be able to
find them cheaper.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: whinery@nancy.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Alan Whinery)
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:40:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.140813.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au> tanemeth@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>In article whinery@nancy.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Alan Whinery) writes:
>>...
>> Thin coax is 1) a much better signal path than twisted pair, able to
>> go almost twice as far as an ethernet plus 2) you can put 29 stations
>> on a thin coax segment, vs 1 on a twisted pair segment. Thus, coax,
>> though slightly more expensive is much more valuable once installed.
>>
>We are going to have to differ on that one!  The only place for thin ethernet
>cable is inside the wiring closet, to connect hubs together.  Thick cable has
>no place anywhere (well, newly installed, anyway).  Anyone who is installing
>thin ethernet cable now is probably VERY misguided.

Well, For those who may be following this, I won't continue the argument as
such, but I will point out that twisted pair can't hold up in high-noise
environments, such as a machine shop or a smelting shop, where large 
switching transients and RF may be present. I can sense this thread nearing the flame
point, so I think that the original inquirer should e-mail Mr. Nemeth or myself for 
further discussion.



--
D. Alan Whinery, Computer Networks Engineer |
The University of Hawaii at Manoa           |  networks@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
2565 The Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822           |  whinery@nancy.uhcc.hawaii.edu
(808)956-6430    FAX (808)956-2412          |  
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: Mehrtens_T@msm.cdx.mot.com
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Organization: Motorola_Codex
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:05:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr1.151835.8309@picker.com> SYSNET@engvax.picker.com (Leonard
A. Visconti) writes:
>We are beginning to use 10baseT hubs ........
>
>I've often heard of a 'three repeater rule'..........
>
>Is the minimum packet size is based on the fact that the sending station 
>must still be transmitting a packet when the farthest node is receiving that
>packet (for collision detection)? If this is the case, I should be able to
>calculate, based on cable and repeater propagation to come up with answers
>to how many repeaters I can use in a given segment.
>Leonard A. Visconti 	Picker International 
>visconti@picker.com	(216)473-4801
>

    Leonard, I set up Motorols Codex' ethernet network for our development
community, and have seen many scenarios where cascading three repeaters will
kill a network, even though we followed the IEEE specs.  Digital Equipment
recommends only two (2!!!) repeaters between stations (with devices connected
on all three segments).  I have set our development network up in this manner
(2), and have avoided a lot of problems.  For example, you can connect a
repeater to a thin network segment, and connect thr remainder of the repeaters
off of this thin segment.  This will give you two repeaters between all of the
stations.  Please do not, ever, cascade repeaters.  It is not a wise practice,
especially if the top device croaks.
    What usually kills a network is high collision rates.  Another case is
where the delay from one station to another, over the cables, transceivers, and
thru the repeaters, is longer than the ethernet preamble (8 bytes).  The
packets collide late (somewhere in the destination address (and I've seen it
collide in the data field!)), causing many small, fragmented, unintelligible
packets.  If I was forced to install a non-DEC compliant network, I would
compute the nano-second delay from station to station, including every
component (AUI, Txcvrs, fiber, etc.), and see if it exceeded the preamble.  If
it did, the law of physics would guarantee networking problems.
    Network designs must also depend on the traffic loading of the segment.  I
have one network segment which has no repeaters, is 30 feet long, has one
server, one bridge, and one router connected to it.  It regularly exceeds 70%
loading and it averages a 5% collision rate over 24 hours!  Many times the
colision rate is nearly 35%.  It litterally dies if I eliminate the bridge
between the server and the 1 repeater.  As one can see, you can't be too
careful in setting up ethernet networks.  You'll get the most volume out of
your network with the smallest possible link between stations.

  We have many 10Base-T devices (all Macintoshes) connected via Cabletron
hardware, with great success.  Again, I have the router only "1-repeater" away
from the users.

""Insert disclaimer here""
Tom Mehrtens <Mehrtens_T@msm.cdx.mot.com>
Motorola Codex, 20 Cabot Blvd C1-30, Mansfield, MA USA 02048-1193
Office: +1 617 821-7427

 ////\\
  _  _
 (o)(o)
   .)
 )-_-(
From: richard@npri6.npri.com (Richard Head)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:51:47 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA

tanemeth@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:

>In article whinery@nancy.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Alan Whinery) writes:
>>...
>> Thin coax is 1) a much better signal path than twisted pair, able to
>> go almost twice as far as an ethernet plus 2) you can put 29 stations
>> on a thin coax segment, vs 1 on a twisted pair segment. Thus, coax,
>> though slightly more expensive is much more valuable once installed.
>>
>We are going to have to differ on that one!  The only place for thin ethernet
>cable is inside the wiring closet, to connect hubs together.  Thick cable has
>no place anywhere (well, newly installed, anyway).  Anyone who is installing
>thin ethernet cable now is probably VERY misguided.

I agree that 10BaseT is the office network scheme of choice these days.
Price is only one factor.  10BaseT is *much* easier to install, manage,
and troubleshoot, and is much more suited to termination on office wall
jacks than 10Base2.  10Base2 becomes more limited and susceptible to
technical problems when using office wallplate jacks, because the rules
of cable length and # of stations differ.

10Base2 seems to work well in a closed environment, such as a single room
or wiring closet, however there is still a problem which will become much
more obvious with the advent of SNMP/DECmcc management and smarthubs:

When all nodes on the Ethernet are "daisy-chained" together, isolating
network problems become much more difficult.  With 10BaseT smarthubs, it
is very easy to isolate a network problem using SNMP tools because each
node has its' own network drop.  If you had a very large network, you
would drop your 10Base2 position in a hurry!!
-- 
richard@npri6.npri.com  <Richard Head>
I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.lans.ethernet:570 comp.sys.novell:3491
From: skilby@ucqais.cba.uc.edu (Steven M. Kilby)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Macs....
Summary: NCSA
Keywords: What PD software is out there
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:50:13 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati, College of Business

Hello,
    I have a MacIntosh IIsi with an ethernet card.  (BNC port).  Is there
any PD software out there that will allow telnet and ftp like NCSA did for
the PC?  Please respond by e-mail.  Thanks in advance!


Steve
-- 
Steven M. Kilby    Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Business Administration
(Steven.Kilby@UC.EDU or skilby@ucqais.cba.uc.edu)   PHONE:  (513) 556-7159
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet