HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wittmann@engr.wisc.edu (art wittmann)
Subject: FDDI cmt signal bits question
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:02:52 CST
Originator: wittmann@muskie.engr.wisc.edu


If I do a "show interface", I get the following as part of the response.

  Phy-A state is active, neighbor is B, cmt signal bits 08/20C, status ILS
    Brk 119, Con 113, Tra 6, Nxt 1243, Sig 1130, Join 113, Vfy 113, Act 113
  Phy-B state is active, neighbor is A, cmt signal bits 20C/208, status ILS
    Brk 121, Con 121, Tra 0, Nxt 1320, Sig 1200, Join 120, Vfy 120, Act 120

On Phy-B, the signal bits indicate that both macs are on output.  This 
seems wrong to me, is it?  I don't think this is a cabling issue, but possibly
an implementation issue.  The device on the other side of Phy-B is a 
cresendo concentrator.

Problem is, we seem to be getting spurious ring_ops, sometimes many thousands 
in a row.  So far this is the first problem that I've found.

Any insight is appreciated.

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: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: cBus II Upgrade
Date: 22 Jan 1993 05:10:44 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Distribution: world
Reply-To: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
NNTP-Posting-Host: corless-mac.cisco.com
Keywords: cBus II

In response to post:
From: jnford@argos.weeg.uiowa.edu (Jay Ford)
Subject: Re: cBus II Upgrade

> The upgrade from a first generation cBus controller to a cBus II controller
  is
> a simple board swap.  The regular system bus interface boards (non-cBus
  boards)
> are not affected by this upgrade.  The cBus interface boards are affected,
  and
> have to have their microcode upgraded to version 10.0 or later.

Additional note: Your software version must also be upgraded to 9.1.1 or
later (9.1.2 is currently available). This may mean that non-cBus interfaces
need to get microcode upgrades to remain compatible with the new software.

> The catch for MEC boards is that only boards of type 5.1 can be so upgraded.
> The older type 5.0 MEC boards cannot be upgraded.  Bummer.  The only cBus
> interface boards I had before upgrading to cBus II were MECs, so I can't
> comment on what it takes to upgrade other cBus interface boards.

While it is true that MEC type 5.0 boards cannot use the new version 10.0
microcode like type 5.1 boards, we have a program to replace the older MEC
cards. If you are under Smartnet or other comprehensive service agreement,
we can Advance Replace a refurbished MEC 5.1 card (with microcode version
10.0) in place of your MEC 5.0 card for $300.00. For customers not covered
under Smartnet or other contract, the Advance Replace cost is $900.00. This is
an upgrade program, so you must return your old card to us within 30 days.
This is significantly less expensive than buying all new cards, although
that option is certainly available if you prefer new equipment to refurbished.

> The cBus II upgrade is in the current price list, as are the required
  microcode
> upgrades.

The cBus II recently dropped in price, as did the upgrade. Here's the latest
US list pricing:

PRODUCT CODE    $ LIST    DESCRIPTION
CSC-CCTL2        $2200    cBus II (when ordered with a chassis)
CSC-CCTL2=       $2200    cBus II (spare)
CSC-CCTL2U       $1700    cBus II Upgrade (requires return of cBus card)

Microcode and software upgrade costs are available through your Cisco Sales
representative, or by calling Cisco Customer Service at 1-800-553-NETS.

At your service!

-Peter Corless.

 -------------------------------------------------------
 Peter Corless
 Cisco Customer Service
 US Federal Business Representative
 -------------------------------------------------------
 e-mail: pcorless@cisco.com    toll free: (800) 553-NETS
 fax:       (415) 903-8080     direct:    (415) 903-8723


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
From: cctr127@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Jason Haar)
Subject: ACLs 
Reply-To: Jason Haar <j.haar@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:09:03 GMT


Howdy,

I have a problem (suprise, suprise ;-)

I want to give a node on my LAN off-site access on the nntp port _only_

Currently I have configured our cisco (which is the gateway) to let anyone
talk to this host on the nntp port, and on any port over 1000 - and visa
versa for connections from the other direction. This works fine, but means
that the node is still open for connections over 1000 - which I don't want.

(just enabling port 119 isn't enough as there are two ports to every
connection)

Is there any other ACL set I could use to ensure that _only_ connections
to .OR. from port nntp were allowed? 

 --

Cheers

Jason Haar, Network Consultant
CSC, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
phone: +64-3-3642 2336    fax: +64-3-364 2332
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
From: rcraig@cisco.com (Robert Craig)
Subject: Re: Routing Problem ?
X-Sender: rcraig@diablo.cisco.com (Unverified)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:58:37 -0500
X-Note1: message-id generated by recnews
X-Note2: mail msgid was   <199301282100.AA02902@spot.Colorado.EDU>

At 10:50 1/27/93 +0000, Glyn Simpson wrote:
>I think this is more of a software problem rather than a routing problem.
>I'm running 8.2(7) on out Cisco AGS+/3 quite successfully until a few
>days ago. During that time, we lost our X.25 link to the outside world,
>through which we encapsulate our IP packets. When the line was down, a
>host on our local network broadcast to fact that it knew how to get to 
>the route 0.0.0.0 (ie the default) in 2 hops (yes, one hop to itself,
>and one back to the cisco) - hence a routing loop was formed. 
>
>This isnt the problem though. The problem then occurred in that the 
>Cisco changed its configuration to point to this host as the default
>route, and subsequently, when the X.25 switch was brought back up, 
>routing was mangled.
>

You need to defend yourself from other routers, either through the use of
administrative distance or an input filter on RIP (don't accept the default
route from anyone).

>Is this a known problem, and do i need to upgrade software (i think one
>is on the cards when we *finally* get the FDDI card we've been promised
>for months, and has not yet appeared. 
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>--
>Glyn Simpson, Systems Officer,  //  Voice: +44 (0) 21 414 6575
>University of Birmingham        //  Fax:   +44 (0) 21 414 3952
>Email: G.Simpson@bham.ac.uk     //  NIC Handle: GS56

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 Robert Craig            ||        ||    1155 boul Rene Levesque ouest
 cisco Systems, eh?      ||        ||    25ieme etage
 (514) 393-3243         ||||      ||||   Montreal, Quebec H3B 2K4
 (514) 393-8937 fax ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
From: szymon@galaxy.uci.agh.edu.pl (Szymon Sokol)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: IP Encapsulation
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:05:46 GMT
Organization: University of Mining & Metallurgy
NNTP-Posting-Host: galaxy.uci.agh.edu.pl
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Gary Blumenstein (garyb@gcm.com) wrote:

: I set the routers up using PPP encapsulation without realizing 
: that it might not be necessary.  My initial thought was that since
: I was using the serial interfaces, than I would have to use a serial
: based protocol.  Is this true?  Can I turn off PPP encapsulation. 
: and run straight IP between the two routers.  Without knowing how much
: overhead the PPP is adding, I'd imagine we'd see better perfomance
: without it.

Actually, there is no such thing as "straight IP" - you always use some sort
of data link layer. In this case, it could be PPP, HDLC, LAPB and probably
frame relay (I am not sure when frame relay can be used). HDLC is usually
a better choice than PPP. LAPB is used for X.25 networks.

-- 
U     U  M     M  M     M  Szymon Sokol -- Network Manager
U     U  MM   MM  MM   MM  University of Mining and Metallurgy, Computer Center
U     U  M M M M  M M M M  ave. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, POLAND
 UUUUU   M  M  M  M  M  M  TEL. +48 12 338100 EXT. 2885    FAX +48 12 338907
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
From: mniku@icl.se (Markku Niku ICL/Swe)
Subject: Routing with non standard addressing
Organization: ICL DATA AB, Sweden
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:03:33 GMT

Hello you all knowlegdable networkers.
We need to set up a simple routed network. We've asked our Cisco gugrus
of this configuration, and the answers are just now : 4 = it works, 4 = it
doesn't.
Could somebody with experience of this give me a hint.
We've got a class B (non standard) subnet 147.14.90.0 with 7bit host addr
and a class C addr 192.121.128.0 (8bit hostaddr today). These are connected
together with two IGS routers. Now we need to get a subnet to another city.
As we are not in need to have more than about 20-30 nodes in the C net, we'd
like to split it to 7bit host addresses and use for routing to more IGS
routers. The way we like to connect it is as followed:


network 192.121.128.0
netmask 255.255.255.128       (existing)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
	|
	|
   |-----------|
   |  IGS      |
   |-----------|	
        Z        <-------- leased 64k line         
   |-----------|
   |  IGS      |
   |-----------|
        |                                         network 147.14.90.0
        |                     (existing)          netmask 255.255.255.0
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
                       |
                       |
                 |-----------|
                 |   IGS     |
                 |-----------|                <---   NEW
                       Z                               |
                 |-----------|                         v 
                 |   IGS     |
                 |-----------|
                       |                          network 192.121.128.128
                       |                          netmask 255.255.255.128
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Routing is to be static or IGRP.
Will this work, and if it does/doesn't, why?

   /// Markku Niku
From: ercm20@festival.ed.ac.uk (Sam Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: Routing Problem ?
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:29:14 GMT

simpsong@dns0.bham.ac.uk (Glyn Simpson) writes:
> This isnt the problem though. The problem then occurred in that the 
> Cisco changed its configuration to point to this host as the default
> route, and subsequently, when the X.25 switch was brought back up, 
> routing was mangled.

Yeah, it's a great bug, isn't it - doesn't just change the routing table
but changes the 'ip route ...' entry in the config.

> Is this a known problem, and do i need to upgrade software (i think one
> is on the cards when we *finally* get the FDDI card we've been promised
> for months, and has not yet appeared. 

Depending on the FDDI card you get (is it the translational bridging
one?) you'll probably need to change your software too.  You may need to
upgrade the microcode on everything on your cBus and even exchange some
of your cards.  Your supplier should know but may not!  Let me know if
you want details.


Sam Wilson
Network Services Division
Computing Services, The University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
From: Ricky Li Fo Sjoe <rlfs@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Cisco, SMDS and multiple LISs
      dated: 28 Jan 93 10:48:52 GMT
Date: 28 Jan 1993 07:50:23 -0800
X-Note1: message-id generated by recnews
X-Note2: mail msgid was   <199301281550.AA06036@lager.cisco.com>

	From: Sam Wilson <ercm20@festival.ed.ac.uk>
	Subject: Cisco, SMDS and multiple LISs
	To: cisco@spot.colorado.edu
	Reply-To: Sam.Wilson@edinburgh.ac.uk
	Message-Id: <9301281049.aa25796@uk.ac.ed.festival>
	Status: RO
	
	Looking for a snippet of technical advice...
	
	I'm involved in a project looking at how we might set up a large
	SMDS-based IP network.  One of the issues is whether we run multiple
	Logical IP Subnets (LISs) or one large LIS.  Before you say anything I'm
	not looking for advice on that at the moment! RFC 1209 recommends that
	IP-over-SMDS equipment should allow multiple LISs on the same SMDS
	interface using different E.164 group addresses (thus allowing a router
	between LISs to use a single i/f).  Some of my colleagues who met Cisco
	people recently say that the Cisco folk said that's what Cisco does. 
	
	Unfortunately there's no trace of this in the manual: I have the 9.1
	Router Products Configuration and Reference and have also looked at the
	Errata and 9.1(1) and 9.1(2) release notes but none shows any method of
	setting multiple group addresses.  Is this an undocumented feature or is
	it planned for a future release? If the latter then which and when?

SMDS Multi-LIS is planned for a major release after 9.1.  It has been 
tested, in-house in an experimental setup.  It''s not a 9.1 feature.
	
	For what it's worth the command to set the group address is
	
	   smds multicast ip <smds-group-addr>
	
	I'd have expected
	
	   smds multicast ip <smds-group-addr> [<ip-net> <mask>]

Correct.  The implementation of SMDS Multi-LIS supports the command
you describe above exactly.  When the [<ip-net><mask>] is left out of the
command, the multicast address is automatically associated with the net &
mask of the primary IP address on that interface.
	
	
	Sam Wilson
	Network Services Division
	Computing Services, The University of Edinburgh
	Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

rlfs@cisco.com

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
From: Mark.Berryman@Mvb.Saic.Com (MUMPS Wizard)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: Anyone using ATG?
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:22:06 GMT
Organization: Science Applications Int'l, Corp. - Computer systems operation

jrb@idx.com writes:
>Hi Folks,
>
>I have Cisco 4000 and an IGS/R.  The 4000 is running version 9.1 and the IGS/R
>is running 8.3.  I am trying to use the address translation gateway feature to
>connect two decnet networks that have addresses in the same decnet area via a
>56k phone line. I have been unable to get this working.  The Tech support folk
>at cisco now say that the ATG function will only work if you are mapping the
>addresses on a single local router, and not accross a phone circuit.  
>
>Is this true?  Can this be possible?  It makes the ATG functionality near
>useless as far as I can tell.... it would only work if were routing between
>two local ethernets.  I'm surprised because I was very clear when I purchased
>the Ciscos about what I am trying to do, and I was assured the the ATG
>functionality would work.  Is anyone out there using it?
 
While I am not using this feature now I have used it in the past and it was
definitely across a serial link.  However, the translation feature is only
used at one end of the link.  It is also necessary to enter every host that
is going to communicate directly across the link in the translation table.
 
I don't have any details in front of me (I'm at home now) but you are welcome
to contact me if you are still having difficulty by the time you read this.
 
Mark Berryman
Mark.Berryman@Mvb.Saic.Com
From: jcrowder@morse.cns.vt.edu (Jeff Crowder)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: IGS vs 3000
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:01:46 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA


What is the practical difference between an IGS router and the 3000 series?  
Do the 3000s have flash eprom?  What other advantages (if any) do they pose?

Thanks,

Jeff Crowder
jcrowder@morse.cns.vt.edu
From: schrupp@cisco.com (Philip Schrupp)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: IP Encapsulation
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:23:40 GMT
Organization: cisco Systems, Incorporated
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lager.cisco.com

Hello Gary,

You do not need to configure PPP encapsulation.
The default HDLC encapsulation will work fine.
The configuration command:

serial  0
encapsulation hdlc

will return you to the default.

You should not lose the physical connection, but it will take a few seconds  
before IP is reconnected.

Phil Schrupp

In article <1993Jan21.153757.20223@gcm.com>, garyb@gcm.com (Gary Blumenstein) writes:
|> I have two networks connected via fractional T1 (128kbps) using 
|> the HSC V.35 interfaces between an AGS+ and IGS/R routers.  This setup  
|> replaced an older set of Sun gateways running Brixton PPP.
|> 
|> I set the routers up using PPP encapsulation without realizing 
|> that it might not be necessary.  My initial thought was that since
|> I was using the serial interfaces, than I would have to use a serial
|> based protocol.  Is this true?  Can I turn off PPP encapsulation. 
|> and run straight IP between the two routers.  Without knowing how much
|> overhead the PPP is adding, I'd imagine we'd see better perfomance
|> without it.
|> 
|> Now the important question;  Can I turn this off without disrupting
|> the network?  Or will I loose the connection?
|> 
|> - Gary 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Gary Blumenstein                          |   garyb@gcm.com        Internet
|> Unix Systems Administrator                |   uunet!gcm!garyb      UUCP
|> Greenwich Capital Markets                 |  +1(203) 625-7937      Voice 
|> 600 Steamboat Road, Greenwich, CT  06830  |  +1(203) 629-9136      FAX

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: msmith@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (Dragon Lord)
Subject: Looking for Thinwire (coax) cards.
Organization: Washington State University Tri-Cities, Richland
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 03:34:33 GMT

I'm looking for an ethernet card (PC) that supports LANtastic.  I DON'T
have the money to use a dedicated server so I'm pretty sure I want a
peer-to-peer setup.  This card should have a BNC connector(if it ALSO
has TP or AUI connectors great), have drivers for LANtastic AND drivers
for something like the FTP inc. products.  My PC boots both DOS and
386BSD but I've already put forth a similar question over on
comp.unix.bsd.  So, any suggestions?  I'm looking at 3COM's etherlink
III but the review in this weeks PC Mag suggests that the etherlink III
only comes with RJ-45 and AUI connectors.

Thanks all

Mark
From: rpratt@novell.com (Robert Pratt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: LAN Analyzer recommendations.
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:02:26 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <1993Jan18.194350.5399@pencom.com> mike@pencom.com (Mike Heath) writes:
>
>I'm in the market for a LAN Analyzer.  Basically, I want to find where
>our network bottlenecks are.  We currently have 16 thinnet legs connected
>through 2 Racal InterLan Multiport Repeaters.  Approximately 100 workstations
>are connected.
>We don't currently have a need for a protocol debugger or anything like that,
>just a traffic analyzer.  The ability to detect shorts/open cables is a
>plus, but not entirely necessary.

Although you may not have an immediate need for protocol decoding, almost every
product includes it, and once you have it I think you'll discover how useful
it is.  My suggestion, if you want a relatively low cost solution, is to
look at the software only products that run on arbitrary NICs using either
ODI or packet drivers to interface to the hardware.  I work on Novell's
product, the LANalyzer for Windows, which is $1495.  Intel has the NetSight 
Analyst, which is in the same ballpark pricewise, and there are also
a variety of other vendors, such as Avante and Triticom.  
   If you really want to focus on cable shorts, etc., a cable tester from
someone like MicroTest is going to do a much better job than any
network analyzer will, so you might want to look at both.

Bob


Bob Pratt                               | voice     : (408) 473-8274
Network Management Products Division    | Fax       : (408) 435-1706
Novell, Inc.                            | more voice: (800) 243-8526
2180 Fortune Drive, San Jose, Ca. 95131 | Internet  : rpratt@Novell.com
"It isn't that I can't help these people, it's that I don't want to."
Disclaimer:  I do not speak for Novell in any way, shape, or form.
From: andor@inode.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: 100MBPS ENET
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:29:50 EST
Reply-To: andor@inode.com
Distribution: world
Organization: inode BBS, NYC's Best Usenet Access (212-679-9146)

Has anyone out there been using/testing the new 100Mbps ethernet? 

Opinions? Feedback? How well does it work? What kind of thruput do you get?
Collision rates? etc...


--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
#! rnews 2
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: rjsmith@iron.hq.aflc.af.mil (Randy Smith)
Subject: Re: Cisco & FOIRL Solution?
Organization: U.S. Air Force Security Assistance Center (AFSAC)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:10:54 GMT


Buehler@worldbank.org (Paul Buehler) writes:


> I've been looking for a good solution for connecting FOIRL ethernet
>connections to an AGS+. I've been using the MEC-6 AUI interfaces and
>currently use a Canary MX FOIRL transceiver for each interface. This
>is somewhat flimsy but gets the job done. I would really like to rack
>mount transceivers for this, what does the rest of the world do for
>this insane arrangement?

I was looking for the very same thing a few months ago for a System Spec to
go from an AGS+ to a SynOptics concentrator via FOIRL.  No one (Cisco or 3rd
party vendors) make a FIROL applique.  The best we could do is get small AUI to
FOIRL transceivers.  Several vendors for those, Allied Telesis is one I
remember.

If you find a better solution, let me know.

--Randy--

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy J. Smith                           DoD #2022   '85 CB450SC
C.E.T.A. Corp                            rjsmith@iron.hq.aflc.af.mil

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments
for going on believing as we already do."
				              -  James Harvey Robinson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Isochronous Ethernet 
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:25:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

I have been asked about what Isochronous Ethernet is recently.  I've heard
the term, but I don't know any details.  The only mention of isochronous
services I can find is in the 802.6 spec.

Is there an isochronous service defined for 802.3?  What is its relationship
to the service in 802.6?  Are there isochronous services now defined in 802.2?
Any references?

-- Craig
From: vince_m@wacss.anixter.com (Vince Mammoliti)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: address of KALPANA?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 08:50:36 EST
Organization: Anixter Canada Inc.

hoens@gmd.de (Guenter Hoens) writes:

> could any kind soul tell me the address of the manufacturer of the
> kalpana switch.
> 
> i really mean the address of the manucaturer, and not the address of
> any distributor.
> 
> thanks in advance
> 
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> * Guenter Hoens, GMD - I8, 
> * German National Research Center for Computer Science
> * hoens@gmd.de    (02241) 14-2408

Hope this helps:

Kalpana Inc.
3100 Patrick Henry Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408) 988-1600
fax: (408) 988-1361
sales: (800) 488-0775

Vince ,

*****************************************************************************
       Anixter Canada Inc.           User: Vince Mammoliti  
      Mississauga, Ontario	    Voice: (416) 897-5665 Fax: (416) 897-6236
   Service Is Our Technology     Internet: vince_m@wacss.anixter.com
****************************************************************************


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet