bj@ohsuhcx.ohsu.edu (Bill Jackson) (03/29/90)
Has anyone found a good way to bring ThinNet into a twisted pair (StarLan)
network? I have a campus network based on StarLan components from AT&T and
have successfully infiltrated standard Ethernet devices into the net using "AUI
adapters" which are little gizmos with a transceiver connector on one end and
an RJ45 jack on the other. This way I have got TCP/IP traffic to coexist with
the StarLan stuff and it works well. Now people want to do the same thing with
ThinNet runs containing Dec, Sun and NeXT traffic.
I have tried adapters from Synoptics with the Dec stuff and it didn't work. A
DEMPR from Digital (Digital ThinWire Ethernet Multiport Repeater) might get me
from thin to transceiver, but its an expensive might!
Is the problem a lack of a twisted pair standard? The Synoptics stuff was all
billed for their LatticeNet stuff - is this not the same as StarLan?
Any feedback appreciated.
--
William Jackson University Systems & Computing, Gaines Hall #113
Oregon Health Sciences University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR
(503) 279 4535 bj@ohsu.edu {nosun, tektronix, ogicse, uunet}!ohsuhcx!bjhaas@cs.utah.edu (Walt Haas) (03/29/90)
In article <405@ohsuhcx.ohsu.edu> bj@ohsuhcx.ohsu.edu (Bill Jackson) writes: >Has anyone found a good way to bring ThinNet into a twisted pair (StarLan) >network? We did this by purchasing a thin Ethernet transceiver (we like the Cabletron brand) and plugging it in to one of the 15-pin connectors on the Starlan hub. Then we just connected all our thin Ethernet machines to the transceiver. Cheers -- Walt
greene@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (John Greene) (03/30/90)
In article <405@ohsuhcx.ohsu.edu> bj@ohsuhcx.ohsu.edu (Bill Jackson) writes: >Has anyone found a good way to bring ThinNet into a twisted pair (StarLan) >network? I have a campus network based on StarLan components from AT&T and > >Is the problem a lack of a twisted pair standard? The Synoptics stuff was all >billed for their LatticeNet stuff - is this not the same as StarLan? > First thing is that you are mixing two different things here. Literally, you can bridge between ThinNet and StarLan using a Mac Layer Bridge such as made by Retix. StarLan is a 1 MegaBit/Sec twisted pair network. The Synoptics stuff is an implementation of 10 MBit/sec twisted pair which is in the process of being standardized as 10baseT. I think that StarLan carries a standard of 1base5 (I think). It's been five years since I messed with any of this stuff. In short, No, Synoptics is not the same as StarLan. Unless it is their series 3000 stuff, it's not 10baseT either. -- John E. Greene "People are just like frankfurters....You have to decide if you're going to be a hot dog or just another wiener" DLR TRW Systems Engineering and Development Division INTERNET: greene@venice.sedd.TRW.COM USENET: ..trwrb!venice!greene
jbreeden@netcom.UUCP (John Breeden) (03/30/90)
In article <430@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> greene@venice.sedd.trw.com (John Greene) writes: > >First thing is that you are mixing two different things here. Literally, you >can bridge between ThinNet and StarLan using a Mac Layer Bridge such as made >by Retix. StarLan is a 1 MegaBit/Sec twisted pair network. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STARLAN PRODUCTS!!!!! Starlan1 is 1mb ethernet. It is IEEE/1baseT and yes, you can bridge it - HP also makes a 10:1 bridge. AT&T OEMs it as the Starlan 10:1 bridge. AT&T ALSO makes Starlan10. It is designed in complience with the 10baseT draft, as is UB and HP's TP products - and all three will "plug-and-play" in the same network. All three will work in a netork based on the current draft and will therefore work if the current draft becomes the standard. (and it looks like it will). >The Synoptics stuff is an implementation of 10 MBit/sec twisted pair which >is in the process of being standardized as 10baseT. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Synoptic's Lattisnet IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to what the 10baseT committee is standardizing on! It is a PROPRIATERY protocol. If you want to convert a Lattisnet network to 10baseT you will need to name all your Lattisnet cards Frisby and replace them with Synoptic's 10baseT cards (Fork Lift Upgrade). It is closer to what AT&T, UB and HP have been shipping for two years. If the current draft becomes the standard, AT&Ts, UBs and HPs product will conform and work as is WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ANY "MIGRATION" (ie: No Fork Lift Upgrade). You WILL NOT get that with Synoptics. >I think that StarLan carries a standard of 1base5 (I think). Try IEEE 802.3/1baseT for Starlan1 and IEEE 802.3/10baseT for Starlan10, there is no 1base5. >It's been five years since I messed with any of this stuff. > No kidding. >In short, No, Synoptics is not the same as StarLan. Unless it is their series >3000 stuff, it's not 10baseT either. You are right - it ain't 1baseT OR 10baseT, and that's both the Synoptics 1000 AND 3000 series if you buy Lattisnet cards. Synoptics has ANNOUNCED 10baseT cards for the 3000 series - but I have no idea if they are shipping them yet. There was a 10baseT intervendor demonstration at Interop this year and Synoptics didn't participate. There has been conflicting press on this - whether Synoptics wasn't invited (so says Synoptics) or whether they refused (so says everyone else). John Robert Breeden, INTERNET:jbreeden@netcom.uucp, UUCP:apple!netcom!jbreeden, ATTMAIL:!jbreeden ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from. If you don't like any of them, you just wait for next year's model." -- John Robert Breeden, INTERNET:jbreeden@netcom.uucp, UUCP:apple!netcom!jbreeden, ATTMAIL:!jbreeden ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from. If you don't like any of them, you just wait for next year's model."
robert@trwind.UUCP (Robert W. Snyder) (03/30/90)
Robert Snyder >In article <430@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> greene@venice.sedd.trw.com (John Greene) >writes: >> [ Obnoxious comments deleted ] Look provided qualified information. Be nice. Most of your comments were based on a misinterpretation of what he said some was justed dated. Reread John's article and find the place where he says Synoptics Lattice stuff is 10 base T. Synoptics has functional 10baseT components I do not know if they are currently for sale. Dont flame John because you did not see them at Interop last October. Just work to correct information you believe to be inaccurate. You dont have to make personal attacks like: > > > John Robert Breeden, > INTERNET:jbreeden@netcom.uucp, UUCP:apple!netcom!jbreeden, ATTMAIL:!jbreeden ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only a fool would refer to this as an internet address. :) Sorry I dont normally respond to crud like this but Johns a nice guy. Mr Breeden I have never met and could possibly be a nice guy who got up on the wrong side of bed. -- Robert Snyder Disclaimer -- nobody claims dis, but me TRW Information Networks Division 23800 Hawthorne Blvd, Torrance CA 90505 USENET: trwind!robert INTERNET: robert@trwind.TRW.COM Phone 213-373-9161
greene@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (John Greene) (03/30/90)
In article <10202@netcom.UUCP> jbreeden@netcom.UUCP (John Breeden) writes: >In article <430@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> greene@venice.sedd.trw.com (John Greene) >writes: >> >>First thing is that you are mixing two different things here. Literally, you >>can bridge between ThinNet and StarLan using a Mac Layer Bridge such as made >>by Retix. StarLan is a 1 MegaBit/Sec twisted pair network. >THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STARLAN PRODUCTS!!!!! Starlan1 is 1mb ethernet. It is My point exactly. I refer to the 1 MBit/sec stuff as StarLan and the 10Mbit/ sec stuff as 10 Mbit twisted pair just to keep it straight. I understand that they are both Star configurations. sheesh, excitable aren't we! >>The Synoptics stuff is an implementation of 10 MBit/sec twisted pair which >>is in the process of being standardized as 10baseT. > >NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Synoptic's Lattisnet IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to what the >10baseT committee is standardizing on! It is a PROPRIATERY protocol. If Obviously a poorly structured sentence on my part. I was trying to say that Lattisnet is Synoptics' own version of 10 Mbit twisted pair and that 10 MBit twisted pair is in process of becoming a standard called 10baseT. The connection being between the 10MBit twisted pair and 10baseT. So I got a 'C' in english composition, sue me. >>I think that StarLan carries a standard of 1base5 (I think). >Try IEEE 802.3/1baseT for Starlan1 and IEEE 802.3/10baseT for Starlan10, >there is no 1base5. >>It's been five years since I messed with any of this stuff. >No kidding. Fuck you, clown. >>In short, No, Synoptics is not the same as StarLan. Unless it is their series >>3000 stuff, it's not 10baseT either. > >You are right - No kidding. -- John E. Greene "People are just like frankfurters....You have to decide if you're going to be a hot dog or just another wiener" DLR TRW Systems Engineering and Development Division INTERNET: greene@venice.sedd.TRW.COM USENET: ..trwrb!venice!greene
urbach@ntmtv.UUCP (Steve Urbach) (04/06/90)
From article <405@ohsuhcx.ohsu.edu>, by bj@ohsuhcx.ohsu.edu (Bill Jackson): > Has anyone found a good way to bring ThinNet into a twisted pair (StarLan) > network? I have a campus network based on StarLan components from ... We have a Centrecom 2900 Smart Brige box from Allied Telisis that briges and traffic routes Thick Ether/Starlan to another Thick Ether/Starlan. Their catalog shows a model 2920 which has Thin/Thick/Starlan to Thin/Thick/Starlan. BTW both these boxes are made by RETIX. BlackBox shows a Thick/Thin version of this package. Price about $2-3K depending on version and label. If you want to talk to their sales critter: Allied Telesis Mountain View, Ca (415) 964-2771 > Is the problem a lack of a twisted pair standard? The Synoptics stuff was all > billed for their LatticeNet stuff - is this not the same as StarLan? NO definately not the same stuff. STARLAN is 1BASE5 and other is 10BASExx ^ ^^ First of all there needs to be speed (frequency) conversion. Standards are evolving, but these arn't the same beasts. BTW if you keep growing nodes on each of the networks (types), be sure that your backbone network has the capacity for the bridge traffic. > William Jackson University Systems & Computing, Gaines Hall #113 Steve Urbach Steve has lot's of opinions.. Northern Telecom His employer subscribes to none of them. Mountain View Mail: {amdahl,ames,hplabs}!ntmtv!urbach Tel : 415-940-2186 (W)
fmcgee@cuuxb.ATT.COM (~XT6561110~Frank McGee~C23~L25~6326~) (04/09/90)
[ lots of things about 1base5 and 10base5 deleted ] 1base5 describes how 1 Mb Starlan works; don't know if their is an equivalent 1baseT standard for 1 Mb 802.3 twisted pair networks. 10base5 describes ethernet (WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS STARLAN 10). 10baseT describes the wiring and hardware inter-connection characteristics of ethernet over twisted pair. You can't directly connect a 10baseT network to a 1 Mb Starlan network; you need to put a bridge in between. >The comments about (hardware/firmware) bridges are valid, but there seems to >be a software incompatibility at a "higher" layer between the 1Mb/s and 10Mb/s >StarLAN implementations (or else I and many others around the country are >simply hallucinating the problems! :-) Actually there isn't if you're using ISO software (Starlan 3.x). All you do is stick a Starlan 10:1 bridge between the 1 Mb and 10 Mb networks, and everything comes up real fine and dandy. It works very well. In fact, a while back we set up a big network for a sales training class that had 1 Mb MSDOS PC's, 10 Mb MSDOS PC's, a 10:1 bridge, a Cayman Systems Gator Box, a Mac, a Sun, and a roomfull of 3B and 6386/25 servers. In addition, we tied the whole thing into our building lab net, and people could access our file servers that we work off of here. The TCP/IP environment worked for all 1 and 10 Mb hosts (ie, you could atleast ping each other, and telnet to the multi-user systems) and those that had some sort of NFS package could share files. On the Starlan side, all the machines that had some sort of Starlan software support were running RFS, you could get terminal service to the multi-user systems, and the MSDOS users could get file and print service. If you consider the items out on our building network, it also includes 3B20's, 3B15's, 3B4000's, and a Vax. And all of this ran over the same wire, with a 10:1 bridge in between the 1 Mb network and 10 Mb network. Through carefull engineering, you can do a LOT with the Starlan products. I haven't heard of ANYONE having problems with 10:1 bridges if they are using 3.0 or later Starlan software. -- Frank McGee, AT&T Entry Level Systems Support attmail!fmcgee (preferred) att!cuuxb!fmcgee (those that can't reach attmail)