HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wew@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Bill Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.misc
Subject: LAN based mailers?
Keywords: lan, mail
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:41:45 GMT
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ

I hope this is the right list.  Please respond to me via email
since I do not normally read the list.  What we are looking for
are suggestions on a mail package that can handle 2000+ accounts.
On our campus we have an ethernet backbone and are using PC/TCP
for communications.  We would hope to be able to put in a server
and have a user friendly mail package running on the PCs attached
to the net.  So far we have looked at MS Mail running under
Lan Manager with Windows for Workgroups and Workgroup connection
at the workstations.  Our main concern with these products is
the apparent limitation in the number of connections per server and 
what appears to be security holes in the post office where users
count mount the post office data drive and delete files.

Thanks for any help you may offer!

-- 
Let sleeping dragons lie........                    | The RoleMancer 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
William Wilson (wew@naucse.cse.nau.edu | wilson@nauvax)
Northern AZ Univ  Flagstaff, AZ 86011
From: dmurphy@novell.com (David Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.misc
Subject: Re: ODI/NDIS-converter
Keywords: ODI,NDIS,TCP/IP
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:08:52 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <1992Nov14.013830.14077@netcom.com> seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert) writes:
>In article <1911@tpscad.tps.de>, winkler@tpscad.tps.de (Thomas Winkler) writes:
>> Who can provide us an ODI/NDIS-converter for converting the ODI interface by 
>> NOVELL to the NDIS interface by MICROSOFT ?
>> 
>> We are also interested in public domain source code.
>> 
>
>Novell can/will provide this upon request. You are not the first with
>this problem. NetWare 4.0 supports NDIS native-mode (or so I have
>been told).
>
>
>-- 
>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"

Sorry, got it slightly wrong or misleading, prehaps I can clarify

ODINSUP.COM allows NDIS Protocol Stacks to operate on top of the DOS ODI 
LSL.COM and DOS ODI Lan Drivers.  ODINSUP.SYS allows NDIS Protocol Stacks
to operate on top of the OS/2 v1.x and v2.0 ODI LSL.SYS and OS/2 ODI Lan Drivers
This as been available for some time, eg. this time last year, over Compruserve
in the NetWire Forum or the NetWire copy available from the Internet, eg.
eg. FTP.Sandy.IS.novell.com, I think, but sjf-lwp.sjf.novell.com in odi/specs 
for sure.

But there is no support ofr NDIS in the Server itself, everything ODI only
with the Server, been that way from the start.

Of course all opinions are my own and not my employers.

PS. Not tech. support so I can't answer your other questions sorry.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.misc
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.misc
Subject: Re: Token Ring vs. Ethernet
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:13:00 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Nov18.172211.10451@mccc.edu>, pjh@mccc.edu (P. J. Holsberg) writes:
> If you were starting from scratch (in a college) and had to network 5
> rooms of 30 MS-DOS/Windows PCs (using multiple servers), would you use
> Ethernet or Token Ring, and why?
> 
> Background: a local resident who is an expert for a company that is very
> big in PC networking says that the only reasons that so many campuses are
> networked with Ethernet rather than Token Ring are that (a) Ethernet was
> on the scene first and (b) until recently, Ethernet was less expensive.
> He contends that Token Ring is the answer to the question in the first
> paragraph in that it is now about the same cost as Ethernet, has larger
> packets and is thus more efficient, and has about 60% higher throughput.
> 
> Eagerly awaiting your opinions...


-Ethernet was first.

-Ethernet is still cheaper, and that is not likely ever to change.

-Ethernet is simpler and so more robust.  Any single ring scheme is a
 royal pain compared to ethernet.  The hassles of source routing and
 other token ring "features" must be experienced to be believed.

-10MHz Ethernet is faster than 4Mb/s token ring.  A pair of 16Mb/s token
 ring stations can be 60% faster than a pair of ethernet stations,
 but mostly because of the underlying bandwidth.  At the (now) low
 speeds of ethernet and token ring, there is no interesting effeciency
 difference for stations (not hubs or switches) between packet sizes
 of 1500 and 16K.


Ethernet is far more common and not significantly worse than token
ring.  Since token ring is not significantly better (it can be argued
to be worse since it is so much more fragile), token ring is dead in
the long run.  The universe does not tolerate competing, largely
equivalent standards forever; eventually the less common one disappears.

Something that might hurry up the decades long death of token ring
might be higher speed LAN's.  The short term winner(s) in those wars
might have some effect on the numbers of new ethernet and token ring
networks.  I thinking of cable plants and hubs that can be used for
for both high and low speed links to the desktop.

In some ways, token ring is the equivalent of OSI protocols in the link
layer.  Bigger and much harder to build, harder to install and
maintain, Standard with a capital S but with incompatible varients,
lots of FearUncertaintyandDoubt from supporters, and a zombie.


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.misc
From: scoggin@opus.ee.udel.edu (John K Scoggin)
Subject: Re: Token Ring vs. Ethernet
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:31:31 GMT

In article <richard_kogut.1.0@brown.edu> richard_kogut@brown.edu (Richard M. Kogut) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.190924.12205@netcom.com> seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert) writes:
>>From: seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert)
>>Subject: Re: Token Ring vs. Ethernet
>>Date: 19 Nov 92 19:09:24 GMT
>>In article <1992Nov18.172211.10451@mccc.edu>, pjh@mccc.edu (P. J. Holsberg) writes:
>>> If you were starting from scratch (in a college) and had to network 5
>>> rooms of 30 MS-DOS/Windows PCs (using multiple servers), would you use
>>> Ethernet or Token Ring, and why?
>>> 
>>> Background: a local resident who is an expert for a company that is very
>>> big in PC networking says that the only reasons that so many campuses are
>>> networked with Ethernet rather than Token Ring are that (a) Ethernet was
>>> on the scene first and (b) until recently, Ethernet was less expensive.
>>> He contends that Token Ring is the answer to the question in the first
>>> paragraph in that it is now about the same cost as Ethernet, has larger
>>> packets and is thus more efficient, and has about 60% higher throughput.
>>> 
>I agree with everyone recommending Ethernet. Note that with modern Ethernets,
>you would use a 10BASE-T hub with star wiring which should give better
>reliability than Token Ring. You could also use standard Level 3 UTP wiring
>(although you should put in Level 5 if no wires are there now). If there were
>multiple servers, you could also use Kalpana-style Ethernet switching to get
>performance benefits unavailable with Token Ring, at a very low cost.
>Richard M. Kogut,   Manager, Systems Services
>                    Brown University Computing & Information Services

A possible additional advantage could be that the 100 mb Ethernet being
currently discussed looks like it may run over the same wire (Level 3 
twisted pair) as 10BaseT uses (but it may need 4 pairs instead of 2).

	- John

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John K. Scoggin, Jr.			Email:   scoggin@udel.edu
Supervisor, Network Operations			 scoggin@delmarva.com
Delmarva Power & Light Co.		Voice:	 302-451-5200
P.O. Box 6066				Fax:	 302-451-5321
Newark, DE 19714-6066
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your milage may vary.  Void where prohibited by law (or common sense).
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.misc
From: seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.misc
Subject: Re: Network Applications Technology (NAT)
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:36:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov21.004634.8081@amc.com>, stewartc@amc.com (Stewart Castaldi) writes:
> If anyone has information about the location, phone number, or
> demise of the above company I would appreciate email about them.
> Thanks.
> 

They are quite alive, at 1686 Dell Avenue, Campbell CA 95008.
(408) 370-4300.



-- 
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.misc
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Subject: Re: Token Ring vs. Ethernet
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:49:45 GMT

In article <By0vno.ItA@tridom.com>, mwr@eng.tridom.com (Mark Reardon) writes:
> 
> ...[other very good words deleted]....

>                             ... I would use the best grade wire I
> could afford with the idea being that if I need 100BaseT I could
> step up without rewiring.  This means run extra pairs now.  Then
> all that would be needed to upgrade are the interface cards and the
> HUB. ...

If you use separate bundles for each set of pairs, you could also
switch to copper-FDDI, in case 100BaseT does not make it in the market
place or spends the usual decades battling The Standards Process.  CDDI
is closer to standardization than 100BaseT.


CDDI will be faster than 100BaseT for most stations for the next few
years, because FDDI uses 4KByte packets.  The smaller 1500 byte packets
of 100BaseT are significant at 100Mbit/sec speeds for the current and
immediatly forthcoming generations of high performance workstations.
For example, DEC was not quite able to show 100Mbit/sec with
TCP/IP/FDDI on their Alphas in their Interop92 booth.


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.misc
Subject: Token Ring vs. Ethernet
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:16:13 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <1992Nov18.172211.10451@mccc.edu> pjh@mccc.edu writes:

   If you were starting from scratch (in a college) and had to network 5
   rooms of 30 MS-DOS/Windows PCs (using multiple servers), would you use
   Ethernet or Token Ring, and why?

Ethernet (10BaseT), because it's cheaper.

   Background: a local resident who is an expert for a company that is very
   big in PC networking says that the only reasons that so many campuses are
   networked with Ethernet rather than Token Ring are that (a) Ethernet was
   on the scene first and (b) until recently, Ethernet was less expensive.
   He contends that Token Ring is the answer to the question in the first
   paragraph in that it is now about the same cost as Ethernet

This fellow is no expert, Pete.  A few minutes browsing a catalog
will tell you that.  The only TR board I've seen for under $400 is
3Com's quantity-one (that is, you can only buy one at that price)
TokenLinkIII for $395.  However, you can find LOTS of high-quality
Ethernet boards for under $100.  Heck, the street price for 3Com's
EtherLinkIII is $140.

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do.
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.lans:1988 comp.dcom.lans.ethernet:2529
From: villalj@xanth.CS.ORST.EDU (John Villalovos)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: ?Experience with ALTA NE2000
Keywords: ALTA,NE2000
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:52:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1eh2abINN6ai
Organization: Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: xanth.cs.orst.edu

In article <mike.722200501@starburst.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>
>Anyone had any experiences good/bad with the ALTA version of the NE2000
>board?  Price is REAL attractive at $129 from "Network Express", has
>both 10-BASE-T /and/ ThinLAN/coax (BNC) connectors/tranceivers plus
>4 status LEDs.  This is a 16 bit PC card.  Especially want to know if it
>works with the standard NE2000 packet driver.

I don't know anything about those boards but I just got a NE2000 compatible 
from Danpex for $75.  The price is dropping cause the last time I had bought
one of their cards it cost $95.  These have Thick/Thin connections.  They
also sell other styles of ethernet and arcnet cards.  If your interested they
are located down in San Jose, CA.  That's 408 area code.  I don't have the 
number right now.  We have around 5 of the NE2000s and they work fine.  I had
one that didn't work right out of the box and they sent me a new one.

Later,
-- 
John Villalovos
Certified Netware Engineer
villalj@xanth.cs.orst.edu
(503) 753-7883
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.lans:1991 comp.dcom.lans.misc:955
From: nabil@ogicse.ogi.edu (Aaron Nabil)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.dcom.lans.misc
Subject: For sale: "Netblazer" - style 8 port serial cards $200
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:07:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.46201
Distribution: world
Organization: Explosive Space Modulators - R - Us

My company purchased a number of Digichannel Digiboard PC8e's for 
a project and never used them. They are still in the factory boxes.

This card is compatible with the Telebit Netblazer series, it is the
original 8 port serial cards they used.  They work fine as plug-n-play
replacements in the Netblazer, and can be used to add more ports to
an existing system.

The Digichannel list price is $800, as is Telebit's.  We would like
$200 + shipping for our boards.  They still have the 5 year factory
warranty card in the box.

Please reply via email.

-- 
Aaron Nabil
nabil@cse.ogi.edu  
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
From: hahn@grizzly.nrl.navy.mil (Adam Hahn )
Subject: Serial<-->Fiber converters?
Organization: U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington D.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:34:13 GMT

Hey-
  I'm not sure if this is the right newsgroup, but I've run into a problem getting 2 serial-to-fiber converters working...
The two converters are:
      Greenwich Instruments Ltd. RS232C Monofibre GFO232DTE/GFO232DCE
 and  Telebyte Technology Inc. Auto-powered Fiber Line Driver Model 271F/ST
Does anyone out there have experience with these two?  Any docs or suggestions you could give?
Advancethanx,
Adam Hahn

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
From: merike@alw.nih.gov (Merike Kaeo)
Subject: fddi concentrators
Keywords: fddi
Organization: National Inst. of Health, DCRT, CSL
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:35:43 GMT

Does anyone have experience with concentrators that offer both multimode/singlemode M-ports within a single chassis?  Are the
boards hot-swappable?
  
-- 

Merike Kaeo			merike@alw.nih.gov
National Institutes of Health	(301) 402-1548 

" If it were't for the last minute, nothing would ever get done."
From: billb@gdfwc3 (Bill Baumann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
Subject: SGI machine resends broadcast messages
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:44:14 GMT
Reply-To: baumann@gdwest.gd.com
Distribution: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
Organization: General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division


My PowerSeries 310 is behaving strangely.  I'm hoping for some advice.

The SGI machine is resending FDDI MAC broadcast messages which have a
destination IP address of that same machine.  Why would it forward messages
destined for itself?  It resends the messages on to two Harris Nighthawks on
the ring.  Why these two, and not others?  I have no idea...  It would seem
that the SGI FDDI device driver has some potent AI, knowing that our Nighthawks
would appreciate an extra copy of these messages.

I am trying to get an underdevelopment multibus II FDDI card working.
Presently it is missing ARP.  So for now, all outgoing messages are broadcast.
Thus the destination MAC is BROADCAST.  The destination IP is the SGI machine.
Source IP, and MAC are of the MBII card.  The messages are UDP/IP, 2k bytes
long.

A process waiting for these messages on the SGI never receives a thing from its
"recvfrom".  My FDDI analyzer shows the messages being broadcasted, and then
resent by the SGI.  The resent messages have the source MAC address of the SGI
machine, and destination of the two Nighthawks.  Otherwise, the messages are
identical to the original, with the destination IP address being that of the
sending SGI machine.

msg1	src MAC		MB II card
	dest MAC	BROADCAST
	src IP		MB II card
	dest IP		SGI machine

msg2	src MAC		SGI machine
	dest MAC	Nighthawk#1
	src IP		MB II card
	dest IP		SGI machine

msg3	src MAC		SGI machine
	dest MAC	Nighthawk#2
	src IP		MB II card
	dest IP		SGI machine


thanks for any suggestions,

	Bill Baumann        baumann@gdwest.gd.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
From: pfloyd@octel.com (Michael Barnett)
Subject: Re: SMT operation that can bring ring down
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:57:04 GMT


A little more background on the problem I'm chasing:
I've seen this error happen only twice in the past 2 months and
I didn't have much code to log what was happening.  I've since
added some additional logging and am waiting for the darned
thing to go out to lunch again.
The setup I'm using is as follows:

    +-------+               +-------+               +-------+
    |       |---------------|       |---------------|       |
    |  A    |               |  B    |               |  C    |
    | WRAP  |---------------| THRU  |---------------| WRAP  |
    +-------+               +-------+               +-------+


Station A is the one having problems (i.e. sees the ring go
down for exactly 10 seconds).  Stations B and C both claim.
Station B wraps.
I think the LER_CUTOFF is being exceeded.  Other test setups
I've been using have been seeing LER rates of around 10E-7
under certain traffic conditions (I know this is due to the
AMD chipset bug).  When I first found out about the bug, I
lowered the LER_ALARM and LER_CUTOFF thresholds to 10E-7
and 10E-4 respectively.  When raising the CUTOFF on a
station to 10E-7, that station sees the ring go down for 10
seconds.  Is the LCT doing tests twice??? (2*LCT_LONG)?
Has anyone seen the AMD bug cause LER rates to go to 10E-4?

Thanks for all the help so far folks!



                    - Mike
-- 
--
pfloyd@octel.com
From: wittmann@engr.wisc.edu (art wittmann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
Subject: FDDI Primer article
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:32:27 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Originator: wittmann@muskie.engr.wisc.edu


I've been asked to write a Primer on FDDI for a trade magazine.  I'd
like to get a couple of you that are implementing to read what I've
got and comment on it.

Please respond directly to me. 

Thanks,
Art

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Art Wittmann                                  Phone: (608) 263-1748
Associate Director                            Email: wittmann@engr.wisc.edu
Computer Aided Engineering Center                or: wittmann@cae.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin, Madison
From: my@berlioz.nsc.com (Mike Yip)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
Subject: Re: SAS Rings
Summary: Simplex ring?
Keywords: SAS Concentrators
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:15:47 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corp.

In article <1992Nov17.191249.21391@den.mmc.com> geger@phantom.den.mmc.com (George Eger (303) 971-6974) writes:
>
>Is there a particular reason why SAS rings of more than 2 stations are not
>allowed by SMT?  Is this just a ploy to sell more hardware?  Seems to me
>there are good system configurations that could warrant SAS rings (like a
>bunch of equipment all in one rack/room that doesn't need the complication
>of DAS or concentrators).
>
>Comments?

Well, the ANSI committee (say slow) is currently working on a simplex ring
proposal for both FDDI-2 and FDDI.  Don't know when that will come, but
at least someone is working on it.

If you need more (technical) info regarding the simplex ring operation.
Please attend the meeting or give us a call.
-- 
| Michael Yip			Email: my@berlioz.nsc.com
| National Semiconductor Corp	Voice: (408) 721-5148
| 
| Of course, this is my own opinion!
From: gah@trc.mew.mei.co.jp (Gary A. Hildebrand)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
Subject: Minimal MAC/LLC
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:05:48 GMT
Organization: Matsushita Electric Works Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

All,

Let's imagine a hypothetical case.  You want to implement minimal data
transport over FDDI, with just enough MAC/SMT support for somewhat robust
LLC, and nothing more.  You don't care about MIB management or SRF's at
this point.  Anyone who's read through the FDDI standards can tell you what
is perscribed as mandatory and what is optional, but how much can you
really get away with?  In a real implementation, are any SMT frame services
absolutely essential for keeping the ring up?  NIF frames immediately come
to mind.  What about the many different types of CMT services and
functions?  I would suppose that most nodes would cause trouble if they
didn't all implement full RMT and PCM support in or out of the MAC
chip/software layer.

This case is actually not so hypothetical.  I'm wondering about PC FDDI
interface cards such as the one from Network Periperals.  Does the small
NDIS driver loaded and/or firmware on the board actually implement all the
ANSI-draft-standard mandatory components of the MAC/SMT protocols that are
not covered by the National chipset, or just a bare minimum functional
subset?  Unfortunately, this board comes with little or no technical
information.

Gary Hildebrand
--
/ Gary A. Hildebrand                 Internet: gah@mew.mei.co.jp       \
/  Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd.   UUCP:     uunet!mew.mei.co.jp!gah \
/   13-2, Mita 5-chome, Minato-ku    Fax:      03-3451-0793            \
/    Tokyo 108, JAPAN                Tel:      03-3452-4941            \
From: whiles@nswc.navy.mil (William Scott Hiles x1568)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
Subject: Re: FDDI Repeaters
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:42:07 GMT
Reply-To: whiles@nswc.navy.mil
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans.fddi
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division

A half day session (Wednesday evening) has been allocated at the December
FDDI meeting in San Diego to discuss the creation of a standard for FDDI
repeaters.  The purpose of this meeting is to determine the support and
goals of such a standard.  At the last FDDI meeting there was some heavy
discussion on both the pro and con side of the creation of such a standard;
but, there was enough interest to get a preliminary working group.  

When Gene Milligan gave the O.K. for the meeting he requested that this
not become a forum for people who are simply trying to prevent the work
from continuing; rather, it should be a discussion of scope and intent.

All interested in this work should attend this meeting.

Scott
---
Scott Hiles
whiles@relay.nswc.navy.mil

Standard disclaimer:
  The opinions expressed are those of my own and do not necessarily 
  reflect those of the DOD or the Navy.  I accept full responsibility.