HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: AUI-AUI cable
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:51:02 GMT
Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA

In article <1992Aug21.114509.27193@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>,
   graeme@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz ( Graeme Moffat) writes:
>> Is it possible to connect two (15 pin female) AUI connectors?
>> eg a repeater to an ethernet card.  It seems sensible to cross the data
>> in/out & control in/out pairs, and not to connect the power pins at all, but
>> will this work?  I realise that AUI connectors are intended for transceivers.

In article <1992Aug22.104052.146@degsyd.syd.deg.csiro.au>
   ip_boss@degsyd.syd.deg.csiro.au (Jack Churchill) writes:
>I could be wrong but I've been told that you can't connect two active or two
>passive AUI devices together (in your case both are active).  You have to
>go through a "direct connect device" - yet another little box.

The spec says you can't do it. On the other hand, I've done it.
Considering that you can get two thinwire transceivers, 2 feet of
coax, 2 Tees and two terminators for about the same amount of money as
a "direct connect device" (which is probably really a
multi-port-repeater hublet), there is no good reason not to "do the
right thing".

When I did this about 6 years ago, I was testing software for an
experimental ethernet adapter for an IBM-channel, driving it with a
channel-simulator on a PDP-11. It would have been a major hassle to get
budget approval for a $900 multiport hublet, and I wanted to get going
that day, so I just patched rx/tx in a 6-inch 4-wire crossover cable,
and with the particular cards I was using, it worked. Also, I had the 
extender cards, oscilloscopes and schematics to track down the problem
in case it had not worked. I would never do a thing like this on a
production network.
-- 
/ Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer	Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM
  CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l	Telephone: +1-805-968-4262	
  Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083		TeleFAX:   +1-805-968-8256
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: mark@infolog.se (Mark Plotnick)
Subject: Problem with 3c503 (EtherLinkII) in mixed LAN environment
Organization: Infologics AB, Sollentuna, Sweden
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:30:10 GMT

We've had problems with 3c503's for a long time. Somestimes they
work OK butthey "degrade" in performance rapidly. We are
trying to run PCNFS and AppleSharePC off of them.

The Xircom adapter we have works fine on all machines,
no strange slow downs.

Were running Ethertalk (Macs with EtherNet cards) and Suns and 
Apollo's and all these work fine. We have occasionally run
DECNET between some VMS machines and that has worked alright
too.

The only other symptom I have noticed is 3c503's seem to be
sensitive to network activity - they're the worst when there
is alot of activity on the net. (this is based on how they
worked when people were on vacation and the great degradation
when vacation period was over.

Our network has 8 branches that are connected through a cisco
repeater. The JAM light blinks fairly often but that doesn't
seem to disturb any other nodes, as far as I can tell.

From these symptoms can anyone say if this is a problem with the
3c503 card or our network?

Any advice or answers are appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Plotnick,   Mark.Plotnick@infolog.se
Infologics AB, BOX 91, 191 22 Sollentuna, SWEDEN
Tel. +46 8 92 20 63          Fax  +46 8 96 08 46
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Null Modem on EtherNet
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:09:56 GMT
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <79671@yarra.pyramid.com.au>, erik@yarra.pyramid.com.au (Erik Lecis) writes:
> The only disadvantage I see, is that it is impossible to resolve network
> problems by "tapping" into the Ethernet with an analyzer - you then need
> a couple of ordinary transceivers and a short length of cable.
> 
True, although the device I referred to in my previous post does have some 
pretty lights to give some indication of status and activity.

Regards,

John Bennett                                E-mail: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Head, Networks Group                        Phone : +61 8 259 5292
Corporate Information Systems               FAX   : +61 8 259 5537
DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION Postal: Bld 73 Labs Area
AUSTRALIA                                           PO Box 1500 Salisbury 
            "Lord Warden of the Sync Ports"         South Australia  5108
                (DSTO Network Manager)              AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Null Modem on EtherNet
From: Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:08:48 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp Science, Victoria Uni, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND


In article <1992Aug30.202007.5568@cti-software.nl>, pim@cti-software.nl (Pim Zandbergen) writes:
|> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <TR27PB1w164w@Control.Com> ics.jjmc@control.com writes:
|> >>>you can't just connect two
|> >>ethernet cards together with a "null modem" and get it to work. 
|> >>
|> >>Maybe you can, if you don't understand the problem. For the IEEE
|> >>Conference here this Spring, we hooked an AT and an XT together
|> >>with 10 feet of coax...
|> 
|> >He's talking about hooking AUI port to AUI port.  Not all Ethernet
|> >cards have the coax interface.
|> 
|> Black Box have a device that connects two machine through
|> their AUI ports.

I've just looked in the New Zealand catalogue for this device and it costs more
than buying a couple of 10BaseT transceivers, attaching them to the AUI ports
and making up a 10BaseT crossover cable. Your mileage may vary!

The other limitation is that the Black Box device "Cannot be connected to the
network backbone" (Black Box Catalogue - NZ Edition 1992) so that when this
little "network" expands as these things inevitably do the box becomes
redundant.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: ffuentes@tolten.puc.cl (Fernando Fuentes SCC)
Subject: Re: Traffic Visualization tool?
Organization: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:30:23 GMT

Brian A. Wolfe (bwolfe@rad.rpslmc.edu) wrote:
: 
: Hi there,
: 
: I am designing a show network for a certain medical society and I
: am trying to find some sort of network traffic analysis package
: that can help some very computer illiterate sorts of people 
: understand which clients and servers are communicating with 
: one another (in real-time, not just a static map).
: 
: For example, one way to show this graphically might be to 
: depict the network map (I need to show about 50 hosts at once)
: with icons representing the hosts, and then draw lines between the 
: hosts in real-time that get thicker (and thinner) based on the 
: volume of traffic between them. 
: 
: I would like to find something that runs on a Sparcstation,
: but I am open to using other platforms (as long as I can send the
: video to an Electrohome projector).
: 
: Thanks in advance for any pointers,
: 
: Brian
: 
: 
: 
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Brian Wolfe						
: Associate Director
: Dept of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
: Rush Presbyterian-St. Lukes Medical Center 
: Chicago,  IL   USA 
: Internet: bwolfe@rad.rpslmc.edu    
: Voice:    (312)-942-2141          FAX:  (312)-942-2114

I'm not sure what are you trying to say when you say a map. There is
software for Sparstetions called SunNetManager. It represents a logical
view of a network ( it doesn't represent buildings, departments, or
countries, but it represents networks, links, and devices). I have heard
of some software that represents phisical layauts of networks, but I
don't where you can find them.

Fernando Fuentes
ffuentes@tolten.puc.cl
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
From: gah@hood.hood.caltech.edu (Glen Herrmannsfeldt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: AUI-AUI cable
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:27:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In AUI loopback connectors, they put capacitors between the
TX and RX pins,

I would think that you would want to do that in this case, too.

Otherwise, you have a grounding problem, because AUI is not
isolated.  The isolation is in the tranceiver.

-- glen
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: cwk@irrational.ssc.gov (Carl W. Kalbfleisch)
Subject: Looking for paper on Harvard bridge/router testing
Reply-To: cwk@irrational.ssc.gov
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
Distribution: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:19:10 GMT


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!
--

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Carl W. Kalbfleisch                              cwk@irrational.ssc.gov |
|  Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory                               |
|  2550 Beckleymeade Avenue, MS-4002                  Fax: (214) 708-4801  |
|  Dallas, Texas 75237                              Phone: (214) 708-3428  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: ggvvgg@mixcom.com (Dave Fenske)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: End of File
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:25:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: mixcom.1992Aug27.232518.4358
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.

I have heard that there are DOS utilities out there that will append an end
of file (^Z) to DOS files that are closed, but do not have the e-o-f.

This problem can arise when trying to redirect such files over a network.
(Lan Man X, for example).  In my particular situation, the problem file is
output normally sent to a plotter, which is normally attached to a PC
directly.  

Might there be a reader here who has heard of such a utility, and who knows
how I can get a copy of it?

DF
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert)
Subject: Re: Max Repeaters/multiport repeater wiring questions
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:42:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <201@ucla-an.UUCP>, daveh@ucla-an.UUCP (Dave Hammond) writes:
> In article <c8dnaah.seifert@netcom.com> seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert) writes:
> >> 5) Are thinnet segments supposed to be grounded somewhere?
> >
> >Yes. Thin-wire ethernets (like all coax ethernet) should be grounded
> >at one, and ONLY one point on the cable.
> >
> 
> This is an embarrasingly simple question, but, how do I ground my
> thin-wire ethernet?
> 

The easiest way is to attach a ground wire from one of the terminators
to the chassis of the device it connect to. This assumes that the device
has a three-wire plug, and its chassis is connected to the third wire.
Many terminators come with a "flying lead" attached just for this 
purpose.


-- 
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: marke@fsi-ssd.csg.ssd.fsi.com (Mark W. Easter)
Subject: Is there a blackbox that will resolve IP conflicts when joining two nets?
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 13:27:30 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: FlightSafety-SSD, Tulsa, OK, USA


This has been discussed at length between some fairly knowledgeable
net folks and the answer is usually "yes" and then a few minutes later
it's "no".  Looking at the problem logically from the bottom upward,
it would seem that such a black box should exist, but then looking
logically from the top down, it doesn't (I'll save the details
underlying these conclusions for now since it isn't directly germain.)
Anyway, I decided to put the question to the largest group of experts
I know, The Net.  Here it is ...

We produce a relatively "off-the-shelf" product that contains a number
of unix systems communicating via TCP/IP over ethernet.  Each product
shipped uses the same IPs for the same systems inside the product.
Now a need has been raised to connect "our" net to someone's building
net. Is it necessary for us to modify our IPs to fit within the
customer's lan scheme (thereby losing an element of our off-the-shelf
nature) or is there a "black box" of some sort that we can place
between the two nets that will allow us to keep our existing IPs?
More explicitly (and now it may sound like an even dumber question),
is there any way I can have 192.9.200.1 on one side of this "black
box" and 192.9.200.1 on the other and still be able to communicate
between them?  Is there any way that routing headers can somehow make
this possible?

On one hand this seems like a dumb question, but on the other, it
doesn't seem likely that every system in the world that has access to
the Internet has a legal SRI/NIC IP.

I'd be grateful for any illumination y'all could provide. 
-- 
                                                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------    /|  -
Mark W. Easter            FlightSafety International               / | /|
Staff Engineer            Simulation Systems Division         -----------
Computer Systems Group    Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012    Flight   \ |   
marke@fsi.com             918-251-0500 x596                  Safety \|SSD
                   "You wreck 'em - we'll rack 'em"                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: kunkee@ferranti.com (randy kunkee)
Subject: Re: Max Repeaters/multiport repeater wiring questions
Organization: Unix/Xenix Support Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:32:30 GMT

In article <c8dnaah.seifert@netcom.com> seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert) writes:
[ stuff deleted]
>A thin-wire to fiber converter may or may not be a repeater, depending on
>the way in which it is implemented. A multiport transceiver (e.g., DEC
>DELNI) is NOT a repeater.
>

Wouldn't you still count this as a repeater when calculating distances
between systems?  Eg.:

VMS----DELNI---transceiver===coax===transceiver---DELNI---VMS

The two VMS systems above should be counted as having two repeaters
(the DELNIs) between them, yes?

>
>
>--
>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"

-- 
Randy Kunkee
Ferranti International Controls Corporation
12808 W. Airport Blvd.  Sugar Land, TX 77478
UUCP: uupsi!ficc!kunkee       ph: (713) 274-5132
INTERNET: kunkee@ferranti.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Ethernet Analyzer/testing devices/software
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 18:10:40 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <1992Aug27.090801.11847@ccsun.strath.ac.uk> 
craa85@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( D.W.Stevenson) writes:
>the PC bus is far too slow to transfer packets to main memory at 10Mbit/s

um, this is not quite correct.  Even using the lowly 8mhz bus, a 16-bit 
ISA card can keep up with a 10Mbit/sec throughput.

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
From: seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert)
Subject: Re: Fiber speed
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 23:38:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: That's about it...

In article <1992Aug18.181507.14439@picker.com>, SYSNET@engvax.picker.com (Leonard A. Visconti) writes:
> Does anyone know the speed of a signal through fiber? For example, through
> thick wire ethernet cable the propagation speed is about 77% of the 
> speed of light. We are using 62.5/125 multimode fiber at 850 nm. I've 
> heard (and read) things that lead me to believe this speed might be as 
> low as 66% of light speed. Thanks in advance....
>
That's approximately correct. Contrary to popular belief, fiber is
SLOWER than most wire. (It is capable of handling higher data rates,
of course.)
 
-- 
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
Subject: Re: Max Repeaters/multiport repeater wiring questions
From: nason@pa881a.inland.com
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:12:05 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN
Nntp-Posting-User: teffeau

In article <201@ucla-an.UUCP>, daveh@ucla-an.UUCP (Dave Hammond) writes:
> In article <c8dnaah.seifert@netcom.com> seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert) writes:
>>> 5) Are thinnet segments supposed to be grounded somewhere?
>>
>>Yes. Thin-wire ethernets (like all coax ethernet) should be grounded
>>at one, and ONLY one point on the cable.
>>
> 
> This is an embarrasingly simple question, but, how do I ground my
> thin-wire ethernet?
> 
> --
> Dave Hammond
> daveh@anes.ucla.edu

This thread began on the topic of multi-port repeaters.  Most/some/alot of
thinwire multiports provide the grounding at the repeater.  So you need not
(*DO NOT*) ground them.  If this is not the case, there are thinwire barrell
connectors with a lead on them for grounding.  You then would connect to your
favorite ground plane (boy a real long thread could form from that subject).  

-- 
My opinions are my own and not those of my company.  
Free advice is worth its cost.  
--- John M. Nason - NA9U ---|--------------------------------------------|
Inland Steel Company        |  -- nason@pa881a.inland.com                |
Process Automation MS 2-464 |  -- Fax:   219-399-7856                    |
3210 Watling Street         |  -- Voice: 219-399-2450                    |
East Chicago IN 46312       |"Ya can't shoot em till they stop sparklin" |
----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
From: was@gdwb.oz.au (Warren Stokes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: Null Modem on EtherNet
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:35:36 GMT

erik@yarra.pyramid.com.au (Erik Lecis) writes:

>In article <Bttn2o.7zr@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton) writes:
>> 
... stuff deleted ....
>ANC retail a 2-Port version for about half the price.

>> The other limitation is that the Black Box device "Cannot be connected to the
>> network backbone" (Black Box Catalogue - NZ Edition 1992) so that when this
>> little "network" expands as these things inevitably do the box becomes
>> redundant.

Milan have a two port transceiver which also has a 10baseT port.  A switch
allows either the two ports to be operation (AUI to AUI) or (AUI to 10baseT
to AUI).
However, in Australia it does cost more than two 10baseT transceivers.


-- 
Warren Stokes			Geelong & District Water Board
Phone: +61 52 262598		61-67 Ryrie St Geelong
Fax:   +61 52 218236		Victoria 3220 Australia
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: AUI-AUI cable
From: graeme@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz ( Graeme Moffat)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:13:27 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert) writes:

>The female DB-15 on a repeater is normally used to connect to a transcevier
>(e.g., on a backbone network). Female AUIs are used on station-like
>devices (a repeater is a station-like device in this sense). Males
>are used on transceiver-like devices. You cannot connect two
>stations together through the AUI (except for a special case
>of a two-station-only network without collision detect!).

Well, that sort of is the case. I was looking to insert a PCbridge between a
repeater & it's transceiver.
All replies have advised against it.
I have since realised that all I need to do is switch the 2nd card to
thinwire & connect to one of the repeater ports, and not connect it's AUI
port at all.

-- 
Graeme Moffat                g.moffat@aukuni.ac.nz \ Time wastes us all, 
Computer Aided Design Centre,  Fax: +64-9-366-0702 /  our bodies & our wits
School of Engineering,    Ph: +64-9-737-999 x8384 /  But we waste time,
University of Auckland, Private Bag, Auckland, NZ \   so time & we are quits
From: nason@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: multiport transceivers
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:42:54 GMT
 <1992Aug26.083331.4012@ccsun.strath.ac.uk> <44G6HJV@netmbx.netmbx.de> <id.CIUS.506@ferranti.com>
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

In article <id.CIUS.506@ferranti.com>, kunkee@ferranti.com (randy kunkee) writes:
> 
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but having SQE enabled would never
> send a false collision signal out onto the coaxial segment.  SQE is
> only sent up the transceiver cable to the Ethernet controller, which
> should be able to ignore it.
> 
> If your transceiver is actually connected to:
> 	1) A repeater
You are correct.  SQE-Test must be turned off on MAU's that are connected to
repeaters (any/all).  
> 	2) A fanout box (which I think is a kind of repeater)

A "fanout box?" (ie, DELNI) would not be condidered a repeater.  SQE is left on
if the "fanout box" is not a repeater and is connected to a network, and there
is no repeater connected to the "fanout box".  The prase "fanout box" is a
dangerous generalzation.  A DELNI could be called a fanout box, a DEMPR could
be called a fanout box, and ORNET Fiber Star could be called a fanout box..ad
infinitum.  All three are different devices.  Although a convenient phrase,
"fanout box" is too general for our uses. IMHO "fanout box" is a phrase that
should be avoided.
   
-- 
My opinions are my own and not those of my company.  
Free advice is worth its cost.  
--- John M. Nason - NA9U ---|--------------------------------------------|
Inland Steel Company        |  -- nason@pa881a.inland.com                |
Process Automation MS 2-464 |  -- Fax:   219-399-7856                    |
3210 Watling Street         |  -- Voice: 219-399-2450                    |
East Chicago IN 46312       |"Ya can't shoot em till they stop sparklin" |
----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Re: How do you connect 10baseT?
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:04:39 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug25.181227.15166@uwm.edu>, peter@miller.cs.uwm.edu (Peter J Diaz de Leon) writes:
> How do I go about cableing together two computers
> using 10baseT. One will been a Unix file server,
> the other will be a DOS machine. Is it just
> UTP with RJ45's wired straight thru or what?
> I am kinda new to this.

Contrary to what else has been posted, this will work fine. There is no need
for a hub or any other equipment. But as soon as you add a third system you
will need a hub. You do need to swap the pairs in the cable, though. The is,
pair 2 is wired to pair 3 and vice-versa. Or, in other words, the pair on pins
1&2 on one end attaches to 3&6 on the other end. Think of it as a null modem.

As to comparisons between 10base2 and 10baseT, if you figure support of the
network in, 10baseT gets to be a lot cheaper in a large network. In a small
network, especially if it is in a small area, 10base2 may be cheaper. You must
also consider if the equipment you want to connect has a built-in MAU for
either.

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