fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) (08/21/88)
Has anybody else seen a 4.3BSD VAX with an Interlan Ethernet interface drop a byte of data? Well, that's what we're seeing. For example, if you % rsh remotehost cat 183_byte_file and the remotehost is a 4.3/Interlan host, the rsh will fail. If you look at a packet on the wire, say, with etherfind or tcpdump, the IP header claims there are 223 bytes (183+40 TCP/IP headers), which is correct. Yet there are really only 222 bytes of data in the packet. Hmm. Futhermore other file sizes fail. It appears that if (n%256 == 183) where n is the number of bytes in the above rsh, then TCP/IP fails because a byte is dropped from the data. If we replace the Interlan with a DEUNA, all is as it should be. Any ideas? -- Fletcher Mattox fletcher@cs.utexas.edu cs.utexas.edu!fletcher
dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis.Bednar) (08/23/88)
In article <3210@cs.utexas.edu>, fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) writes: > > If you look at a packet on the wire, say, with etherfind or tcpdump, > ... Say, these "ethernet sniffer" tools sound like very useful tools. Do these tools run on the UNIX machine, or on a PC? Is source available? Tell me more about them. Thanks. -- FullName: Dennis Bednar UUCP: {uunet|sundc}!rlgvax!dennis USMail: CCI; 11490 Commerce Park Dr.; Reston VA 22091 Telephone: +1 703 648 3300
pierre@imag.imag.fr (Pierre LAFORGUE) (08/23/88)
In article <3210@cs.utexas.edu> fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) writes: >Has anybody else seen a 4.3BSD VAX with an Interlan Ethernet interface >drop a byte of data? Well, that's what we're seeing. >For example, if you > % rsh remotehost cat 183_byte_file >and the remotehost is a 4.3/Interlan host, the rsh will fail. Your report is not very accurate; I think it depends of the Interlan interface. Here, we are using the both types: NI1010A and NP100. Both work well (I tried your test, of course). May be your problem comes from your software driver. For instance, the original BSD4.3 NP100 driver was bugged. You may ask Un. of Berkeley for the updated driver. -- Pierre LAFORGUE pierre@imag.imag.fr pierre@imag.UUCP uunet.uu.net!imag!pierre
fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) (08/28/88)
In article <3334@imag.imag.fr> pierre@imag.UUCP (Pierre LAFORGUE) writes: >In article <3210@cs.utexas.edu> fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) writes: >>Has anybody else seen a 4.3BSD VAX with an Interlan Ethernet interface >>drop a byte of data? Well, that's what we're seeing. >>For example, if you >> % rsh remotehost cat 183_byte_file >>and the remotehost is a 4.3/Interlan host, the rsh will fail. > >Your report is not very accurate; Well, no. The report is quite accurate. Maybe it's not as complete as it could have been, though. :-) card: Interlan BD-N11010, rev C, assy rev A, S.N A-103. transceiver: Interlan NA1010 driver: @(#)if_de.c 7.1 (Berkeley) 6/5/86 It does appear that nobody else has seen this, so I'm still a little puzzled. Someone did mention that Interlan shipped some bad cards about five years ago which had a similar problem. Our card is at least that old. Anyway, I've quite worrying about it and just replaced it with a DEUNA, since we have plenty of those. Thanks to all who responded. Fletcher
casey@admin.cognet.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom) (08/28/88)
In article <3237@cs.utexas.edu> fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) writes: > card: Interlan BD-N11010, rev C, assy rev A, S.N A-103. > transceiver: Interlan NA1010 > driver: @(#)if_de.c 7.1 (Berkeley) 6/5/86 Well, I think you're going to have an enormous amount of difficulty trying to use if_de.c with your Interlan. Why don't you try if_il.c? And as someone mentioned earlier, you should grab the latest copy of that driver since there were some significant bugs in the copy distributed with 4.3BSD. Casey
fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) (08/28/88)
>> driver: @(#)if_de.c 7.1 (Berkeley) 6/5/86
Um, make that:
driver: @(#)if_il.c 7.1 (Berkeley) 6/5/86casey@admin.cognet.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom) (08/29/88)
In article <15566@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> (casey@cs.ucla.edu) I write: > Well, I think you're going to have an enormous amount of difficulty > trying to use if_de.c with your Interlan. Why don't you try if_il.c? > And as someone mentioned earlier, you should grab the latest copy of that > driver since there were some significant bugs in the copy distributed > with 4.3BSD. > From: Chris Torek <chris@gyre.umd.edu> > Apparently Interlan makes a DEUNA-style board. Also, the major bugs > were in if_np.c, not if_il.c ... Opps! I should know better too. Thanks for the correction. Casey
scott@h-three.UUCP (scott) (08/31/88)
In article <3210@cs.utexas.edu> fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) writes: >Has anybody else seen a 4.3BSD VAX with an Interlan Ethernet interface >drop a byte of data? Well, that's what we're seeing. I've seen Micom/Interlan Ethernet controllers drop bytes. I've seen them loose a bit, left shifting subsequent data by a bit. Somehow, these errors were not caught by any of their protocol error checking. Micom/Interlan claims that fixes are/were in the works. BTW, this was observed on a Multibus I board. -- Scott H. Crenshaw scott%h-three@uunet.uu.net h-three Systems Corporation uunet!h-three!scott POB 12557 100 Park Drive Suite 204 Research Triangle Park, NC 27607 (919) 549-8334