HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brettw@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett D. Watson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: LANtastic network cards
Date: 9 Sep 1992 11:10:01 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

  Anyone know off the top of their head:

  Can I use ANY ethernet card with Lantastic or are the cards vendor
specific?  I'm assuming from the older cards we have that they must
come from Artisoft.  I thought they must be different network cards
since it's a peer-peer network op system.

-=- Brett
-- 
  Brett Watson, 915 Calflin Rd. Manhattan, KS  66502, (913) 776-5951
  ==================================================================
	brettw@matt.ksu.ksu.edu | brettw@holonet.net
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert)
Subject: Re: 10Base-2 connection limits
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 21:06:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <Bu2EC7.1qr@world.std.com>, edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards) writes:
> I want to set up a small 10Base-2 network, and am thinking of running the
> coax as homeruns to the wiring panel for better fault tolerance.
> My question is whether I can avoid useing a hub, and just tie them together
> with a sequence of T-connectors? 
> Is there a specified limit to how far I can take this?
> 

No, No, NO, NO, NOOOOO!  10Base2 cannot be wired as a star as you describe.
It requires wiring as a linear bus, (aka daisy-chaining) from station-to-
station. If you want to use star-wired coax, a multiport-repeater must
be used at the star center (you may call this a hub, if you wish, but
I don't).

No "stubs" are allowed on 10Base2; the coax cannot branch using T
connectors anywhere. T connectors are used to attach stations to the
cable, with a short (zero) length tap.


-- 
Rich Seifert                    Networks and Communications Consulting
seifert@netcom.com              (408) 996-0922
                                (408) 996-2860 FAX
"... specialists in Local Area Networks and Data Communications systems"
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert)
Subject: Re: what is SQE  (DUMB QUESTION!) :  No such thing...
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 20:51:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

> 
>    On the same thread, do V1 or V2 ethernet DTE's tend to get
>    annoyed when they get their XMIT data echoed back on receive?
> 

On the contrary, they (and 802.3 controllers as well ) REQUIRE that the
transceiver perform the loopback function.

-- 
Rich Seifert                    Networks and Communications Consulting
seifert@netcom.com              (408) 996-0922
                                (408) 996-2860 FAX
"... specialists in Local Area Networks and Data Communications systems"
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert)
Subject: Re: 802.3 changed to require 802.2 header
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 20:08:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Sep7.152301.1@ptavv.llnl.gov>, oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.095644.1@pa881a.inland.com>, nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:
> > In article <JKT.92Sep3134856@seneca.SED.Provo.Novell.COM>, 
> > jkt@SED.Provo.Novell.COM (Jack Thomasson) writes:
> >> 
> > 
> >> unfortunately (as will happen), the standard changed to require 802.2
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I have been looking for this statement.  I have the ISO 8802-3 from 1990 and
> > cannot find this.  Can you tell me what version and where it changed.  
> 
> If memory serves, this requirement is not in 802.3 at all. I believe you will
> find it in 802.1, the 802 "umberella" standard which covers things common to
> all of the 802 standards.
> 

It is also in 802.3, but it is NOT OBVIOUS. The 802.3 frame shows all of
the various fields. The "data" field is explicitly referred to as
LLC Data throughout the document. LLC is defined as 802.2. Thus, 
a "valid" 802.3 frame must have 802.2 data contained within it. 
QED.


-- 
Rich Seifert                    Networks and Communications Consulting
seifert@netcom.com              (408) 996-0922
                                (408) 996-2860 FAX
"... specialists in Local Area Networks and Data Communications systems"
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: lazarea@mercury.ncat.edu
Subject: correction
Organization: North Carolina A&T State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:05:46 GMT

saw my mistake in subject line too late. should have read multiport
transceivers instead of multiport repeaters.

-- 
Andy lazare                  internet  lazarea@garfield.ncat.edu
n.c. a&t state univ                    lazarea@mercury.ncat.edu
greensboro, n.c.             bitnet    lazarea@atsuvax1.bitnet
 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG)
Subject: Need phone number for Microtest
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:13:01 GMT

I need the phone number for Microtest, the maker of the pair scanner.
From: art@acc.com (Art Berggreen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: 10Base-2 connection limits
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:03:29 GMT
Organization: ACC, Advanced Computer Communications

In article <Bu2EC7.1qr@world.std.com> edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards) writes:
>I want to set up a small 10Base-2 network, and am thinking of running the
>coax as homeruns to the wiring panel for better fault tolerance.
>My question is whether I can avoid useing a hub, and just tie them together
>with a sequence of T-connectors? 
>Is there a specified limit to how far I can take this?

About an inch. :>(

Seriously, stub lengths on the basic 10Base2 cables MUST be kept to a
minimum to avoid introducing impedance changes on the cable which
cause reflections and trouble.  This is why it's not legal to even include
a drop cable from the T-connector to the workstation.  Hubs usually also
provide fault isolation if a cable segment is opened or shorted.

>BTW, I am looking at 10Base-2 rather than 10Base-T because this is a home
>installation, and several people have warned me that 10Base-T may generate
>lots of RFI. Also, if I can avoid buying hubs, it is a lot cheaper.

I doubt that's a real problem.  If concerned, use shielded twisted pair.

>Thanks,

Art
>
>
>-- 
>Jonathan Edwards				edwards@intranet.com
>IntraNet, Inc					617-527-7020
From: vhalkka@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Vesa Halkka)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Looking for paper on Harvard bridge/router testing
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:51:49 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <CWK.92Sep4111910@irrational.ssc.gov> cwk@irrational.ssc.gov (Carl W. Kalbfleisch) writes:


>I have a report on PowerHub Internetworking Hub performance from Alantec.
>It describes some results of tests done at Harvard in October 1991.  It
>also states that the findings were reported over Internet this year.
>If someone has the internet report, or the original copy of the 
>Scott Bradner report on performance of internetworking hubs, I would
>appreciate a copy.

me tooooo!

--
Vesa Halkka                       -O___/ 
University of Helsinki CC:         (  /   	 vhalkka@helsinki.fi 
Centre for scientific computing:  ~~~~~  	 vhalkka@csc.fi
From: mbt@ESD.3Com.COM (Brad Turner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Looking for paper on Harvard bridge/router testing
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:24:04 GMT
Distribution: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet

cwk@irrational.ssc.gov (Carl W. Kalbfleisch) writes:

>I have a report on PowerHub Internetworking Hub performance from Alantec.
>It describes some results of tests done at Harvard in October 1991.  It
>also states that the findings were reported over Internet this year.
>If someone has the internet report, or the original copy of the 
>Scott Bradner report on performance of internetworking hubs, I would
>appreciate a copy.

>Thanks!
>--

All of Scott's data, presentations, programs, scripts etc. are
available for anonymous FTP from hsdndev.harvard.edu [128.103.202.40]
in the /pub/ndtl directory.

-brad-


--
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
Brad Turner | 5400 Bayfront Plaza  | Marketing Engineer   | (408) 764-5261
3Com Corp.  | Santa Clara CA, 95052| mbt@NSD.3Com.Com     | (408) 764-5002 fax
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: ThickWire repeaters...
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:13:49 GMT

pim@fct.unl.pt (Joao Paulo Pimentao) writes:


>We are considering using thick wire ethernet to connect two buildins
>on our campus. Later on we are going to replace it by fiber optics;
>but the easiest way and the fastest for us presently is to create a
>thick wire connection.
>Our thick wire cable may be near the maximum lenght that I believe is
>1 km.
>Could you please help me sugesting the best way to extend it.
>I think I can use repeaters to enlarge it with another km or so. Is
>this true? Could you point me to some repeaters?

Uh-oh...
lightning hits overhead, or anywhere nearby, are likely to induce
equipment-frying spikes in a cable like that unless it is _extremely_
well shielded (e.g. run underground in a metal conduit).  I'm not sure I've
ever seen lightning arrestors for ethernet cable.
If you can, go straight to fiber.

-JTT
From: richard@npri6.npri.com (Richard Head)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: cascading multiport repeaters
Date: 13 Sep 92 13:05:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA

don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) writes:

#<RHUNTER@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
#> YOU CANNOT CONNECT A DEC REPEATER TO A DELNI.....
#(b) You can.  The constraint is that the transceiver that the DELNI's 
#global port is attached to must have the SQE test disabled (as does
#a single transceiver attached to a repeater).  The effect of this is
#that all devices on the DELNI (or other manufacturer's multiport MAU --
#this doesn't just apply to DELNIs) "think" they're attached to an MAU 
#that has the SQE test disabled.  Some things care, some don't. 

To be more specific, most VAXes will show "collision detect check failure"
when checking the line counters in NCP for the ethernet line.  

We had a DEC repeater (DESPR, single port thinwire repeater) connected to
a DELNI port.  Our DELNI's were configured in a hierarchical-cascade
(1 DELNI plugged into another).  The network was small and no other problems
existed.  Users started reporting intermittent cases of their LAT terminal
session terminating with the message "protocol error".  When we moved the
DESPR to a transceiver on the thickwire coax, all was fine.

#If you have a number of repeaters, consider sticking them all into one DELNI
#with the SQE test disabled.

I have nightmares about such configurations.  I would recomend an
inexpensive smarthub/10BaseT configuration anyday.

#With regard to the _original_ question, ie can you cascade DELNIs, the 
#answer is no.  The only exception is when the "top" DELNI is in local 
#mode, which isn't the configuration being asked about.  Buy more 
#transceivers.


I think Digital recommends the global port have a be in global mode with
a loopback connector on it if the DELNI is not connected to another DELNI
or a transceiver (for the repeater configuration).

-- 
richard@npri6.npri.com  <Richard Head>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen)
Subject: Hardware from Protocol Engines Inc.
Organization: Motorola Panther Project, Chandler, AZ
Distribution: WOLRD
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:20:33 GMT

Hi,

  I hope someone in Netland has the info I need.

  I heard there is an outfit called Protocol Engines that makes  a H/W based
protocol processing device.  How do I get a hold of them?  Are there any other
outfits that make a similar product?

  Please e-mail repsonses I am not a regular to many of these threads.

  Thanks in advance,


-- 

>
Ron Feigen
ronf@panther.mot.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: dcarr@gandalf.ca (Dave Carr)
Subject: Re: Bridge/switch/router for multicast addresses?
Keywords: multicast
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:36:39 GMT

In <1992Sep11.021850.5029@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> shall@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au (Dr SC Hall) writes:

>I am developing a conferencing application on Ethernet, and want to
>make use of the multicast (as distinct from broadcast) addressing
>feature.  A problem arises when I want to work across more than one
>Ethernet segment, because the bridge/switch/router needs to be able to
>interpret these addresses.  I have been unable to get an answer out of
>local vendors as to how their products treat multicast addresses.
>Therefore, my question is: Does anyone know of an Ethernet
>bridge/switch/router which CAN handle multicast addresses?  

A bridge should allow multicast through by default, and may optionally
allow the user to block multicast (possibly all multicast or select
multicast).

Our bridge allows selectable forwarding of broadcast and multicast.
Individual multicast addresses may be added to the static filter
to allow only some addresses to be passed/blocked.

Your local distributor down under is CTEC (61-2-975-4722).  Ask for
the LANLine 5220.
-- 
Dave Carr               | dcarr@gandalf.ca       | It's what you learn, 
Principal Designer      | TEL (613) 723-6500     | after you know it all,
Gandalf Data Limited    | FAX (613) 226-1717     | that counts.
From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: 802.3 changed to require 802.2 header
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:23:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.095644.1@pa881a.inland.com>, nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:
> In article <JKT.92Sep3134856@seneca.SED.Provo.Novell.COM>, 
> jkt@SED.Provo.Novell.COM (Jack Thomasson) writes:
>> 
> 
>> unfortunately (as will happen), the standard changed to require 802.2
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I have been looking for this statement.  I have the ISO 8802-3 from 1990 and
> cannot find this.  Can you tell me what version and where it changed.  

If memory serves, this requirement is not in 802.3 at all. I believe you will
find it in 802.1, the 802 "umberella" standard which covers things common to
all of the 802 standards.

R. Kevin Oberman			Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: koberman@llnl.gov		(510) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: 10Base-2 connection limits
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 20:59:46 GMT

In article <Bu6HH5.CpL@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton) writes:

>You could get a "star" configuration by running two lengths of coax from your
>patch panel to each location that you want to connect and then connecting the
>bus up with 'T' connectors and short jumpers at the patch panel. You'll chew up
>your 180 metres fairly quickly doing this of course.

A minor clarification:  The 'T' connectors are at the workstations, not at
the patch panel.

From my experiences here with thin coax I too highly recommend 10BaseT,
which I'm trying to switch to, unless your workstations are in a small
cluster (geographically near each other.)

There are fancy (expensive) wall jacks and drop cables that run from the wall
to the workstation.  There's a single BNC and it's a round cable, but the cable
really contains two coaxes inside and when you unplug the other end from the
wall it reconnects the rest of the loop, thus making your net safer against
accidental unplugging.  Essentially, the drop cable is two cables with a T
built in the end.  So, it can't be extended with coax since you would be
entending the stub off the T, which I'm sure by now you've heard is a no-no.

But, for the price of these fancy wall plates and drop cables, you can
pay for the 10BaseT repeater hub.

With thin ethernet coax, you have to assemble the BNC connectors on the end
of the cable, and the connectors have to match both your cable and your 
crimp tool and I'm sick and tired of them failing.  [End moaning.]  These
fancy wall plates do allow fairly simple installation with "normal" tools,
and avoid the BNC connector headache, however.  Good luck on your decision.
From: rkd@pt.com (Ray Downes)
Subject: Anyone tried the new St Clair 10baseT xcvrs
Organization: ORGANIZATION:-PTI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:07:23 GMT

St. Clair has a new model 10baseT xcvr (SN1024) for $39.  I've had good
success with their other xcvrs (SN1020 and SN1021, currently sell for
about $80), which latch tight and have highly visible status
indicators. I`d rather not loose ground ...
-- 
Ray Downes, Performance Technologies Incorporated		rkd@pt.com
315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620		  
Voice - (716) 256-0200, FAX (716) 256-0791
From: dougm@boulder.Central.Sun.COM (Doug McCallum)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: 802.3 changed to require 802.2 header
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:04:54
Organization: SunSoft, Inc.
	<JKT.92Sep3134856@seneca.SED.Provo.Novell.COM>
	<1992Sep4.095644.1@pa881a.inland.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: boulder.central.sun.com
In-reply-to: nason@pa881a.inland.com's message of 4 Sep 92 09:56:44 CDT

In article <1992Sep4.095644.1@pa881a.inland.com> nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:

   > unfortunately (as will happen), the standard changed to require 802.2
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   I have been looking for this statement.  I have the ISO 8802-3 from 1990 and
   cannot find this.  Can you tell me what version and where it changed.  

It doesn't state it explicitly in 8802-3 that you must use 8802-2, but
it does imply it very strongly in section 1.1.2 and 1.1.2.1.  It says
"The Logical Link Control (LLC) sublayer and the MAC sublayer together
encompass the functions intended for the Data Link Layer as defined in
the OSI model."  It gives also gives the reference for 8802-2.
From: perl@dwrsun4.UUCP (Robert Perlberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Can Token Ring wire be used for 10BaseT?
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:56:28 GMT
Organization: Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., New York

Our building is wired for token ring.  Each office has a box with two
connectors on it.  One is an RJ45 modular connector used by the Centrex
phone system (you plug your phone into it).  The other is (sorry I
don't know the official designation) a big approx. 1 inch square four
conductor connector used for our token ring PC LAN.  In the
communications room there are cables which are terminated in these
square connectors each of which corresponds to an office and the ones
which come from offices with PC's get plugged into a MAU.

My question is, can this wiring be used for Twisted Pair Ethernet?  Can
I make (or buy) an adapter that will connect an RJ45 to a token ring
connector and use the existing building wiring for 10BaseT?  (With, of
course, appropriate 10BaseT transceivers in the offices and 10BaseT
hubs in the communications room.)

Robert Perlberg
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., New York
{murphy | philabs}!dwrsun4!perl
	-- "I am not a language ... I am a free man!"
From: tom@rsp.UUCP (Thomas Ruf)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: 802.3 Non-Compliance (?)
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:20:59 GMT
Organization: RSP Datensysteme, W-Germany

shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) writes:
>(in compliance with Novell's standards, but...) and I doubt the vendors
>would write radically non-compliant drivers on purpose without raising a
>fuss (am I an idealist...? ;).
Seems you are: I've heard of at least one vendor who ships drivers
that send frames that are longer than 2k in order to fit a
2k IPX packet and win a benchmark ....
(max Ethernet size is 1518 bytes)

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Ruf	tom@rsp.de	Schneider & Koch GmbH
{uunet,mcvax}!unido!rsp!tom	Germany
From: rcstack@rwa.urc.tue.nl (Harry Stox)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Drivers for DE-600 sought (Lantastic, NDIS)
Summary: Looking for NDIS and Lantastic drivers for D-Link DE-600 adapter
Keywords: D-Link, DE-600, Lantastic, NDIS
Date: 5 Sep 92 16:54:24 GMT
Reply-To: harry@stack.urc.tue.nl

Hello,
 
I am looking for a Lantastic driver and NDIS drivers (both DOS and OS/2) for
the D-Link DE-600 Pocket Ethernet Adapter. Can anyone point me to an anonymous
ftp site and/or a telephone number of a support bbs?

Thanks in advance for your help,
Harry Stox.

-- 
=============================================================================
Email: Internet: rcstack@urc.tue.nl              Bitnet: rcstack1@heitue5
Computer Association STACK, Computing Centre RC 1.82,
Eindhoven University of Technology, POBox 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, Holland.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: 802.3 and EthernetII yet again
Organization: Purdue University, Indianapolis
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:36:24 -0500

In article <1992Sep10.153745.759@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, mike@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Cosmik Debris) writes:
> On our campus we run EthernetII and 802.3 (netware) on the same LAN. I read in
> Novell documents it wasn't a good idea to run the two together. I have noticed people in this group and comp.sys.novell saying the same thing. Being a good soul I changed my novell servers to EthernetII. Some of the other servers on campus are still 802.3. I have never noticed a problem running the two together. What is the problem? Can someone give a good reason for all the other Novell servers to change?

Sigh.  Please use press your return key once in a while.  It makes a posting
much easier to read.

What do you mean by "run the two together" ?  Do you mean run two different
encapsulations of IPX on the same wire?  This is possible, but you'd have to
assign an IPX network number to each encapsulation and route between the
two.  Novell's IPX routing can do this, but some other vendor's can't (for
example, on Cisco routers as of GS 8.2 I believe you get a choice of one IPX
encapsulation per Ethernet interface, and "raw 802.3" and Ethernet II are the
only encapsulations available).  The only reason I can think of for doing
this is during a transition between "raw 802.3" and Ethernet II for IPX.

Or do you mean having "raw 802.3" encapsulated IPX and other Ethernet II
protocols (e.g., IP) on the same wire?  This is done all the time.  But if
you have a machine on the wire that hurls when it sees "raw 802.3" IPX
packets, one can say that allowing "raw 802.3" on the wire is a bad idea.

Strictly speaking, "raw 802.3" is non-standard.  But, suppose you have 200
PCs on a wire that all boot using "raw 802.3" EPROMs?  Suppose further that
none of the other machines on the wire have a problem with seeing "raw 802.3"
IPX on the wire?  In this case, whether it is a problem worth fixing or not
is a judgement call.

--
James Harvey    IUPUI OIT Technical Support
harvey@iupui.edu  uucp: iugate!harvey  bitnet: harvey@indyvax
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet