HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu (craig helmuth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Suggestions for 10-base-T Mac Network w/ VAX & NetWare
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:37:13 GMT
Organization: Geophysical Institute

In article <1992Apr16.202427.13683@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dfuller@isis.cs.du.edu
(Desi Fuller) writes:

[good stuff needlessly deleted     ;-]

>My questions which I need answered are:
>
>1) Does anyone have opinions on 10-base-T hubs and cards (for all type of
>   Macs) in this type of networking scheme.
>
We have used the Asante 10T hubs, as a start, but they are LED management
("if the light is green, everything is keen...").  But they are so cheap
at an educational price of less than $450 for 12 ports that you can keep it
a spare if later you buy a smart hub.  Asante is rumoring an SNMP hub
*REAL SOON NOW*.

We have used several dozen Asante nubus based ethernet cards, and have had
very good luck with them so far.  Am ordering 5 more today at $139 per.  Works
under Sys6 or Sys7 (even with Tune Up 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1...)

>2) Pros/Cons of various makes of these types of hubs and cards. (Asante, 
>   Farralon, Dayna)
>
See 1)

>3) Problems running System 7.0 (and System 6.0.5 or greater).
>
See 1)

>4) Sharing of NetWare printers, Apple Printers and VAX printers.
>
We don't do Netware ("Just Say No!"); we have the VAX postscript lasers on
print queues set-up through Pacer Software's PacerLink/PacerShare.  This is
handy for the NEC ColorMate printer, as we use VAX printing management to
track color printer use.

>5) Suggestions for various network management programs on the Apple Macintosh.
>
>
For an SNMP managers, only WatchTower (TM, Bob Dylan) from InterCon runs on
a Mac - am still waiting for *real* net manager here.  We use EtherPeek for
general looking at ethernet events, InterPoll, NetWatchMan and some other
misc utilities.  Watch (from ftp.cayman.com) will do some of the same stuff
as EtherPeek for free.  We may also get SkyLine from the AG Group.  I still
have my gripes with the AG Group tho, relating to fixing long present bugs
of the annoying but non-fatal type...

>I appreciate ANY assistance that anyone can give me (since this is a totally
>new network, I would like to do it right the FIRST time....)
>
An unsolicted comment on wiring.  We have been very pleased with the following
wiring scheme: every room has two wiring drops of six pair unshielded twisted
pair wiring of the highest level/grade of wire we can afford at the moment.
At the end of the wire drop is a Levitron surface mount box with a small type
66 wiring block.  In a lab I'd do the same thing, except with one six pair
drop per pair of computers.

Luck!
>
>Desmond S. Fuller - Network Administrator       American Red Cross
>                                                Jerome H. Holland Laboratory
>Office - (301) 738-0898 or -0894                15601 Crabbs Branch Way
>FAX    - (301) 738-0794                         Rockville, MD  20855

Craig Helmuth, Network Manager   |  craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu  
fncah@alaska.bitnet
Geophysical Institute
University of Alaska Fairbanks   |  "Its all FANTASY...until its HISTORY"
From: dave@racer.lkg.dec.com (Dave Lyons)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:21:48 GMT
Reply-To: dave@racer.lkg.dec.com
Organization: TNSG - MCC Frameworks Technical Support

>	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.


Link segments are, basically, fiber between two repeaters.  The old
Ethernet version 2 rules allowed for two repeaters, and the repeaters
at each end of the fiber counted as "half repeaters".
=============================================================================
Stercorem pro cerebro habes.   <or>  Caput tuum in ano est.

Dave Lyons
Digital Equipment Corporation
550 King Street
Mail Stop LKG1-2/W10
Littleton, MA 01460-1289
dave@racer.ENET.dec.com  (or)  RACER::DAVE
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: Ethernet questions
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:15:45 GMT

ersicrko@el6.er.ele.tue.nl writes:
+---------------
| Packet Ethernet:
| - bits within byte transmitted left to right
+---------------

This is incorrect. Ethernet transmits the *least*-significant bit of
each byte first. Thus, the 0x01 bit of the first destination address
byte is the physical/multicast bit, the 0x02 bit is the global/local
bit, etc.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)335-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:34:11 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

Minor corrections:

In article <1992Apr6.130736.1@qis.dofasco.ca> hilbig_t@qis.dofasco.ca writes:
+---------------
| ...Repeaters are also responsible for regenerating a packet's preamble to
| its full length, and passing on a collision reported on one side to the other
| side. The later is done by "jamming" (sending 62 bits of alternating 1's
| and 0's) to the non-colliding side.
+---------------

This is incorrect. A legal "jam" is 32 bits minimum, 48 bits maximum.

You are probably thinking of "preamble", which is 62 bits of "1,0,1,0,..."
followed by 2 bits of "1,1".

+---------------
| > 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)?
| 
| Yup!
+---------------

Close, but not quite correct. It's so that if the farthest station starts to
transmit *just* as the near station's packet gets to it, the near station is
still transmitting when the far station's "jam" gets back to it, and so both
stations reliably and unambiguously agree that there was a collision. This
causes all stations in a collision to always agree that there was a collision
("Collision Consensus Enforcement", in the spec), and do the backoff algorithm
together.

+---------------
| Yup!  Doubling the end-to-end delay gives the Round Trip Propogation Delay. 
| This number must be less than 1 slot time (512 bit times);
+---------------

Actually, the maximum calculated round-trip time in the Ethernet 2.0 spec
based on the maximal permitted network configuration (max stations, max length
segments, max repeaters, max fiber, etc.) was 464 bits. This plus a maximum
length "jam" (48 bits) is what *defines* the slot time (464+48 -> 512).
[See Ethernet 2.0 spec, section 6.3.2.3]

+---------------
| the minimum packet size (64 bits including addresses, excluding preamble). 
+---------------

That's 64 *bytes* (= 512/8).


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)335-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311
From: tcross@ucs.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Isolan chassis collisions problem
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:55:19 GMT
Organization: University Computing Service, University of Adelaide


   Has anyone had any problems with Isolan Chassis as below?

  We have an Isolan 10 port chassis connected to the Thick by a transceiver
with several 12 port twisted pair ethernet cards fitted.
  The structured cabling is IBM type 3 level 4 to each user none exceeding 100
mtrs.
  The problem is that we get problems with the UTP cards some will give the 
symptom of the packet light and the collision light flashing at the same time
with the collisions being seen on the thin card and hence the net.
  If we unplug the telco connector from the back of the card and plug into
another card the fault goes away, and the port works fine, however if we then 
connect the connector to another replacement card the fault reappears.
  This would indicate 2 faulty cards however by putting these cards onto
another net they work without fault. I know this sounds confusing but
the only explanation we can deduce is that the tx/rx on the different ports
is a different tolerance?.
  If we connect a P.C. straight onto the telco connector each port works
perfectly on all cards. 
  You would then blame the wiring if that were the case why will it work on
one card and not the others?
  We have checked all the obvious things like jumper settings etc, I might
mention we have several of these types of nets on campus working away quite
happily for ages with no problems.
  If anyone has any suggestions, hints.....anything I would be very grateful
if they were to contact me.
  By the way anyone using old transceivers such as H4000, and repeaters they
must be replaced with a new type since the H4000 does not have the ability
to turn off the heartbeat. (We discovered this in the course of trying to
fix the above)

  Thanks in advance

Tony Cross     


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              -  Denise does
      EMail...... Tony.Cross@itd.adelaide.edu.au              -  Video......
      Snail Mail. T Cross GPO box 498 Adelaide S.A. 5001      -
      Fax........ (08)223 6245    Phone..... (08)228 5714     -  Amiga
                                                              -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: rexm@teal.csn.org (Rex Mammel)
Subject: Re: LANbridge 100's not passing arp requests
Keywords: PC-NFS 
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:47:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.000043.2236@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ssw@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (steven wallace) writes:
>In <1992Apr15.153505.1@wums.wustl.edu> brenner_t@wums.wustl.edu writes:
>
>>I'm having a problem with LANbridge 100's not passing arp requests.  If the
>>bridge is reset it starts working again. This problem seems to have
>Some versions of the DEC's lanbridge software contain a bug that allows them
>to "learn" the broadcast address. Some network devices, lord knows why, will
>send an ethernet packet with the SOURCE address being broadcast. The

One known package which will use the source address of broadcast
is PC-NFS 2.0.  Upgrading to PC-NFS 3.0 would be another way to attack
the problem. Especially, since DEC is notoriously slow for admitting
and providing no cost upgrades for their screw-ups.
From: turnerj@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: How does NFS and Netware compare.
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:21:40 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego

In article <mqh+61@engin.umich.edu>, kelson@engin.umich.edu (David Lewis) writes:

> OR I can buy Netware.  I would assume that NFS on unix can handle large
> amounts of traffic, but how does it stack up to NetWare?  I dont want

It's my general understanding that for dos-based clients that Netware will
outperform the various NFS implementation.  However, NFS from unix client to
unix server is supposed to be very fast.  An NFS server is also going to prove
to be a much more flexible and open platform, IMHO.  For dos clients, it seems
to be a case of speed versus flexibility.

I am in the process of making the same decision that you describe and would
very much like to see additional discussion from those with experience.

-  James Turner
   turnerj@cpva.saic.com
From: lazarea@mercury.ncat.edu (Andy Lazare)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: macIIfx on ethernet
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:37:52 GMT
Distribution: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Organization: North Carolina A&T State University


first off, if this isn't the right group for this question, tell me
which one would be.

i have a person on campus here that has a macII fx that he wants to hook
to our ethernet network. he bought an apple ethernet nb card, model no.
m0417lla. he also bought an apple ethernet aui adaptor, model no.
mo432lla. actually it's a transceiver, apple just calls it an adaptor.

the ethernet network in his building has a thick wire backbone. we have
a cabletron mt800 multiport transceiver connected to it. 

will it work if i run a transceiver cable from apple's aui adaptor to my
cabletron multiport transceiver? the distance between the mt800 and the
mac is 90 ft. so i know the distance is within spec. i read it can be up
to 50 meters.

cabletron says it won't work because apple doesn't follow the ethernet
standard. (i think that's the reason he gave me). apple says it does
follow standards. 

can anyone help me on this one. it's my first time at hooking up this
type of configuration. i didn't want to order the transceiver cable
until i was sure it would work.

thanks for any help. again if theis is the wrong group for this question
let me know. or if you need more info let me know.

andy

-- 
andy lazare                  internet  lazarea@garfield.ncat.edu
n.c. a&t state univ                    lazarea@mercury.ncat.edu
greensboro, n.c.             bitnet    lazarea@atsuvax1.bitnet
From: johnm@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:26:41 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Apr6.130736.1@qis.dofasco.ca>, hilbig_t@qis.dofasco.ca writes:
>The original DIX (DEC, Intel Xerox) Ethernet standard allowed for a maximum of
>2 repeaters between any two non-bridged nodes.  I suspect this was to allow for
>large "start of packet propogation delays" (timing delay) of earlier repeaters.
>IEEE 802.3  bumped this up to 4 repeaters max; I don't know where you heard of
>the 3 repeater rule.

I've always thought DEC's 2 repeater rule was because they counted
repeaters in a funny way.  They counted a local coax to coax repeater as
one, and they counted a pair of remote repeaters connected by a
fibre-optic link as one.

Hence the valid large configurations were
a) 3 coax segments and 2 local repeaters
b) 3 coax segments, 1 local repeater and 1 fibre segment with 1 pair of
     remote repeaters
c) 3 coax segments and 2 fibre segments with 2 pairs of remote repeaters.

These valid large configurations are the same as for IEEE 802.3 rules
(ignoring for the moment newer Ethernet media).  However, while DEC
rules count a), b) and c) as 2 repeaters, IEEE rules count them as a) 2,
b) 3 and c) 4 repeaters.

Thanks,
	John
--
John Mann, Leader - Networking Section  Net: johnm@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Computer Centre, Monash University      Tel: +61 3 565 4774
Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia       Fax: +61 3 565 4746
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: comptec91055@camins.camosun.bc.ca
Subject: network id soft.
Organization: Camosun College
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:31:45 GMT



		Hello Hardware gurus and hackers:

			I am attempting to write a small routine which can be
executed on any pc that returns information on the resident network card (type
mem. cap. etc.)  (assembly/c routine).. My problem is that I am unsure of which
interrupts the card takes over when it is installed, whether or not these inter-
rupts are from the dos vector table or directly from the cpu, and how they can
be used to access card info.  If anyone has the time I would very much appreciate
 any information that could be provided.  I will send anyone that responds a copy
of the final program which does a series of hardware checks and verifications
on the pc, including nice output (not that anyone responding would need this,
but what the heck..)   If there are any ideas could you please e-mail them.
 			Thanks in advance,
	
			D. Rozee
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: tcross@ucs.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Connecting two machines without an "Ether"
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:58:08 GMT
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Organization: University Computing Service, University of Adelaide


In article <1992Apr05.165348.26168@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, thomas@duteca2.et.tudelft.nl (Thomas Okken) writes:
> I want to connect two machines with thick-ethernet ports. Can I save the
> expense of two transponders (or whatever those little expensive boxes are
> called), and use some kind of straight-through cable? With some passive
> components perhaps?
> I suppose this should be possible, but I don't know anything about the
> pin-outs and electrical specs of the DB-15 ethernet port. If anyone has done
> this before, I'd love to hear about it.
> Thanks!
 
 It should be possible to connect a cable between the two machines connecting
only the tx+ tx- rx+ rx- signals
I have heard of it being done below is a list of the pinout from the
DB15 transciever port  

 1.Chassis gnd.
 2.Collision +
 3.Transmit +
 4.NC
 5.Rx +
 6.Gnd (for transciever)
 7-8 NC
 9.Collision -
 10.Tx -
 11.NC
 12.Rx -
 13.12volts (do not connect this pin !!)
 14-15.NC

Collision should not be a problem between two machines also if it is over
a short distance unshielded twisted pair will do the trick.

Let me know how you go

Tony Cross Comms section University of Adelaide  South Australia
 
>  - Thomas.
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Okken                | "Guilt should attach only to anyone who remains
> thomas@duteca.et.tudelft.nl |  ignorant in the presence of an opportunity to
> (31)15-565044               |  learn."       - Frank Herbert: The White Plague
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: richard@npri6.npri.com (Richard Head)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Repeaters
Summary: Thinwire .vs. 10BaseT
Keywords: 10BaseT, UTP, Thinwire
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:00:57 GMT
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!
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.sys.sun.misc
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Connecting two machines without an "Ether"
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:31:48 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr05.165348.26168@donau.et.tudelft.nl> thomas@duteca2.et.tudelft.nl (Thomas Okken) writes:
>I want to connect two machines with thick-ethernet ports. Can I save the
>expense of two transponders (or whatever those little expensive boxes are
>called), and use some kind of straight-through cable? With some passive
>components perhaps?

No.  The AUI port (aka "thick" port, the one with the DB-15) interface is
seriously asymmetric and there is no simple way to make one end look like
the other.  You have to have electronics in between.  I believe there are
outfits that sell little interface boxes that will do the job more cheaply
than a pair of transceivers or a multiport transceiver.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: BROADCASTS ON ETHERNET
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 09:29:14 GMT

toupine@ciaibbs.Colorado.EDU (edward toupin) writes:
+---------------
| Has anyone worked with broadcasting messages to client processes?
+---------------

First, you want to be using multicast, *not* broadcast! Broadcast is very
anti-social, because it forces *every* machine on the net to process and
reject your packets.

Second, read RFC 1112 and RFC 1075 to see how others do IP multicast. Usually,
this is done with UDP on top of IP, which means your application needs its own
error-control mechanisms. There are many applications which have successfully
used RFC 1112 multicast, including SGI's own "dog" demo (distributed flight
simulator).

Finally, there has been some success with so-called "reliable multicast"
protocols, which incorporate error-control (e.g., "go-back-N" retransmission).
For example, the XTP protocol provides a form of sequenced stream reliable
multicast. For the past two years at Interop, SGI has demo'd "live video"
(2-3 frames per second) multicast to several stations from one camera over
FDDI.

The XTP protocol spec (hardcopy) may be obtained by writing [this is a new
address] or emailing:

	Protocol Engines, Inc.		<xtp-request@pei.com>
	301 E. Evelyn Ave., Suite A
	Mountain View, CA  94041-1530

For the present, it may also be obtained via anonymous FTP from sgi.sgi.com,
file xtp/xtp3.6.ps.Z (compressed PostScript).

(Note that SGI does not currently offer an XTP product. Additional questions
about XTP should go to PEI.)


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)335-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: jsanchez@polari.com
Subject: Re: Ethernet to Token-ring bridge
Keywords: Ethernet Token ring
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 05:34:45 GMT

I have become familiar with the CrossCom bridge and it certainly works
well.  If you are just running TCP/IP it may be overkill though.  It will
surprise you to know that the IBM 8209 is one of the best ones around and
it is CHEAP (well sorta anyway).  I have been told that RAD makes a good
one too and trust the source - they are half the price of the CrossComm.
You will not go too far wrong with any of them I suspect.
Cheers
-- 
Jim Sanchez 
Hughes LAN Systems - Bellevue, WA (206)646-4999
Internet: jim@hls.com OR jsanchez%polari@uunet.uu.net
UUCP: ..!uunet!polari!jsanchez