paul@cgh.UUCP (Paul Homchick) (07/04/88)
In article <738@cgh.UUCP> I wrote: > >>I recently purchased a 6386 WGS with Unix/386 which I wish to use to >>provide the same services as the 3B1, i.e: DOS server, and unix logins >>via STARLAN. In article <5902@chinet.UUCP> les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > >First, a question: do you expect to be able to connect the 3B1 and the >6386 to the same Starlan network? My impression is that when the 6386 >unix starlan driver is released it will use the recently announced OSI >low-level protocol and I have heard nothing about a compatible release >for the 3B1. Of course I expect to be able to connect the 3B1 and the 6386 to the same network. Why should I want to throw away my 3B1? This is a very a very intriguing and very unpleasent train of thought which I had not, until now, entertained. I note from a passel of literature just received, that AT&T is offering the following STARLAN products: 3B2 Server Program, Version 3 3B2 OSI Network Program 386 Server Program, Version 3 386 OSI Network Program DOS Server Program, Version 3 3B2 DOS Server Program, Version 1.01 PC6300 Network Program, Version 2.0 STARLAN Hardware STARLAN10 Hardware Is it possible that not all of these items are compatible with each other? Might someone running a 3B1 with a DOS server and a few copies of the PC6300 Version 2.0 Network Program be forced to throw it all away and start over again if they want to add a 6386WGS Unix box to the network? What does STARLAN mean, if all of these are "STARLAN", but none of them will talk to the others? Will the *real* STARLAN please stand up. This is not idle curiosity on my part. I have a real network with real AT&T equipment in it, and there is a 6386WGS on my desk awaiting integration. If there is a helpful AT&T Network Guru out there I have a few questions: 1. Can the "PC6300 Network Program, Ver 2" communicate with one of the Ver 3 Servers? 2. Does the DOS client software come bundled with the Ver 3 Server programs? 3. Can the 'old' STARLAN protocol and the new version 3 exist on the same physical network? i.e: can there be a set of version 3 servers and clients, and version 1 servers and clients on the same network? 4. Will a 1:10 bridge provide connectivity between version 3 and version 1 as well as connecting STARLAN and STARLAN10? 5. Is the "OSI Network Program" required to run the "Version 3 Server Program"? If so, is it bundled with the Server, or is it an extra cost item? 6. If the answers to these questions are not resolved in my favor, does anyone want to buy a loaded 3B1? (Or, maybe a 6386. It isn't clear which "incompatible" hardware to dump.) (Or^^2, where is the OSI support for the 1,000's of 3B1s??) -- Paul Homchick {allegra | rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc.; One Radnor Station, Suite 300; Radnor, PA 19087
rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) (07/07/88)
HI! It's time to play that wounderful game, sleuth or consequences! The unpleasant issue of the day, STARLAN OSI protocols! (the information in revealed in this is my "best research" on the topic, and was done on myown networks behalf. You will probably not like the answers.) In basic summary: all of the "old" STARLAN stuff will _not_ talk with any of the new stuff; the STARLAN and the STARLAN 10 are _not_ wire compatable, but any kind of bridge will make this relationship hunky-dorry; there is _no_ hardware difference between the old and new STARLAN boards, but the STARLAN 10 stuff is an entriely different game (it should therefore be possible to replace the drivers for non-suported systems). THINGS YOU WILL LOOSE: ISN SLIM-C cards (to be eventually replaced) RS232-C NAU (totally history, no future plans to replace _ever_) 3B1 Connections (by omission, no word as to the future?) STARLAN 10 _will not_ dasy-chain. NRUs are no longer necesssary for long runs. (NHU now does this function.) THINGS YOU WILL GAIN: NHU (Network Hub Unit) differs in important diagnostic and protection functions from the NEU which is still useable for STARLAN. The major feature of the NHU is that it will isolate faulty network sub-segments, increasing system integrity. 6386 Servers can "host" printing for any printer attached to any client. This will not be available for 3B server software. STARLAN and STARLAN 10 may be intermixed with ETHERNET <sp?> devices, or bridged to such segments. This does not include TCP/IP and others, but it dosn't seem to preclude it either new STARLAN drivers are (aledgedly) about twice as fast as the older stuff. All Wire-feet distances are increased. X.25 Bridging and SNA-STARLAN session bridging. Servers can generate alert messages on (MS-DOS) client screens. (i.e. warnings, alerts, and system condition messages) (now for the questions...) in article <740@cgh.UUCP>, paul@cgh.UUCP (Paul Homchick) says: > AT&T equipment in it, and there is a 6386WGS on my desk awaiting > integration. If there is a helpful AT&T Network Guru out there I have > a few questions: > > 1. Can the "PC6300 Network Program, Ver 2" communicate with one of the > Ver 3 Servers? NO. The "new" packet structures are totally different than the older structures on the most primitive level. while it should be possible to make a packet-type-translating bridge, there is no aparent intent to do so. > 2. Does the DOS client software come bundled with the Ver 3 Server > programs? YES. The "dos server program, Version 3" is similar to the network software you are used to receiving, but it is now sold with a minimum client licence of 8. (i.e. you pay more cash.) This seems to be a response to people liberally copying the client software. I do not know if there is a built in protection against ilicit copying(??) > 3. Can the 'old' STARLAN protocol and the new version 3 exist on the > same physical network? i.e: can there be a set of version 3 servers > and clients, and version 1 servers and clients on the same network? NO. The packets and such from the "old" and "new" versions are supposed to be capible of totally scrambling eachother. I have not tried this, so it may not actually be true. (This is supposed to be an addressing issue.) > 4. Will a 1:10 bridge provide connectivity between version 3 and version > 1 as well as connecting STARLAN and STARLAN10? NO. The 1:10 bridge preforms promiscuous address evaluation on all the packets, and then retransmits necessary packets on the far side of the bridge compleetly unchanged. Only necessary traffic is passed, so old format traffic would be filtered by default. An other bridging no-no is connecting lan segments in a circle. (i.e. A || B || C || A ) If there is more than one way to get there the birdges will storm. > 5. Is the "OSI Network Program" required to run the "Version 3 Server > Program"? If so, is it bundled with the Server, or is it an extra > cost item? .NA. The Version 3 stuff has been "re-engineered" to conform to the OSI 7-layer spesifications and protocol requirements. There is no "OSI Network Program" per-se. All the "new" programs are "OSI Network Programs" while all the "old" stuff are the "Proprietary Network Programs" > 6. If the answers to these questions are not resolved in my favor, does > anyone want to buy a loaded 3B1? (Or, maybe a 6386. It isn't clear > which "incompatible" hardware to dump.) (Or^^2, where is the OSI > support for the 1,000's of 3B1s??) The 386 software and hardware is far superrior for use on the STARLAN and STARLAN 10 networks. Their capacity (in network connections/sessions) is more than twice that for the 3B2/600 et. al. If and when the SCSI adapter comes out for the 386 systems, they will become the network server of choice. At present 3B2/600 is the best mass-disk server while a 386 server will handle the MS-DOS clients better. A multiple service network using one STARLAN-DOS server and an RFS link seem to be the best ideas for combining the capacities of the two. As far as the 3B1 are concerned, the best answer I have gotten on that is "that hardware isnolonger supported." Oh well..... Rob. Disclaimer: This is my research, not "official" AT&T party line; The first, however, is damn close to the second. > -- > Paul Homchick {allegra | rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul > Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc.; One Radnor Station, Suite 300; Radnor, PA 19087
les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) (07/08/88)
In article <1094@nusdhub.UUCP> rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) writes: > >The unpleasant issue of the day, STARLAN OSI protocols! > >THINGS YOU WILL LOOSE: >3B1 Connections (by omission, no word as to the future?) ^^^ Thanks for the input - I raised the issue because I had reached the same conclusion from looking at the descriptions of the new products. The AT&T sales people that I deal with were unable (or unwilling) to give an answer about a 3B1 version for OSI. >The 386 software and hardware is far superrior for use on the STARLAN >and STARLAN 10 networks. >... >As far as the 3B1 are concerned, the best answer I have gotten on that >is "that hardware is no longer supported." > >Oh well..... At the same meeting where the 3B1 issue was brought up, I asked the AT&T sales people why I should buy their 6386 machine as opposed to the many others on the market. Their answer: "Well, you want to buy from a company that is going to be around to support it's equipment, don't you?" >Disclaimer: This is my research, not "official" AT&T party line; > The first, however, is damn close to the second. Anyone have an "official" reply? Les Mikesell
rgb@mtung.ATT.COM (Rich Bantel) (07/09/88)
The question was asked, "Can old STARLAN SW coexist with new (ISO) SW?" A followup response stated NO. The answer is indeed YES. The proprietary set of protocols can run on the same media as the new protocols. So, if you want to keep an old server (and some clients) running the old stuff, you can do so while also having ISO traffic on the same network. Isolation is provided by the LLC protocol.
pete@tutor.UUCP (Peter Schmitt) (07/09/88)
In article <5957@chinet.UUCP>, les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > At the same meeting where the 3B1 issue was brought up, I asked the > AT&T sales people why I should buy their 6386 machine as opposed to > the many others on the market. Their answer: "Well, you want to buy > from a company that is going to be around to support it's equipment, > don't you?" That's what they said when people were buying 7300's and 6300+'s
mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) (07/14/88)
>>First, a question: do you expect to be able to connect the 3B1 and the >>6386 to the same Starlan network? My impression is that when the 6386 >>unix starlan driver is released it will use the recently announced OSI >>low-level protocol and I have heard nothing about a compatible release >>for the 3B1. > >Of course I expect to be able to connect the 3B1 and the 6386 to the >same network. Why should I want to throw away my 3B1? This is a very a >very intriguing and very unpleasent train of thought which I had not, >until now, entertained. I am not very familiar with Starlan, but in case it doesn't work out, here is an alternative. I have a 3B1 and a 6386 right next to each other, on the same TCP/IP/Ethernet network. They talk to each other quite reliably, although certain things don't work. The 3B1 uses the WIN/3B1 stuff from AT&T. There is an Ethernet board from AT&T for the 3B1 that it works with. The 6386 uses a TCP/IP package from Micom/Interlan and a board from the same outfit. Rumor has it that there are several other sources of TCP/IP/Ethernet for the 6386 now or soon. Remote login, file copy, and remote execution work well. In fact, I plug a 630 into the serial port on the 6386, run layers, and rlogin one of the layers into the 3B1 for all my use of the 3B1. This way the machines can both go in another room where their noisy fans and tiny screens don't bother me. Since I can change the escape char on rlogin from ~ to something else, I'm much happier with the rlogin link than when I cu out from the 3B1 on the modem, where I'm stuck with ~. Frustrating if I dkcu out from the other end or read mail. I have a laser printer plugged into the 3B1 which I use from the 6386. (This is because I have spare serial ports on the 3B1 but not the 6386.) The "lp" command on the 6386 is now a shell script that rsh'es the lp command on the 3B1. It works very reliably, although everything I spool seems to print but keep sitting in the printer queue on the 3B1 taking up disk space. And of course it would lose if the 3B1 were down, but I keep them up 24 hours/day. RFS does not work, because it's not supported on the 3B1. Thin ethernet is an obvious thing here for a 2 machine ethernet, but the 3B1 only supports thick. Email does NOT work over the ethernet, because the Micom/Interlan port does not include sendmail or anything like it. This is frustrating because I have to read my mail on the 3B1, which is a much slower machine. The Micom/Interlan stuff also does not support netstat or other commands that like to poke in /dev/kmem, because the TCP/IP is offloaded onto the board where the CPU can't get at it. This makes debugging difficult. ruptime works in one direction only - one of the machines can't see the other. I can't remember which one, but it has something to do with a flag setting on the 6386, I think. I never bothered to fix it. In general, the 3B1 isn't getting enhanced anymore. I would not hold my breath looking for an OSI or RFS for it. Unless the Starlan people are continuing to develop for it, which might be possible, I don't know. Mark
les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) (07/17/88)
In article <656@cbnews.ATT.COM> mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: > >Remote login, file copy, and remote execution work well. In fact, I >plug a 630 into the serial port on the 6386, run layers, and rlogin >one of the layers into the 3B1 for all my use of the 3B1. This way >the machines can both go in another room where their noisy fans and >tiny screens don't bother me. Rats.. I do something like the reverse of this using the 3B1 as a terminal with an rlogin-like program that connects via starlan-TLI to any/all of 6 3B2's on the net. I usually fire up the connection with a shell script that uses windy to create a full-screen window with the name of the host that window is connected to. Then I can use <suspend> and pop to any of the 3B2's with all of the screen contents kept intact. Perhaps not quite up to x-windows, but I like it. Other that this, our 3B1's are mostly just running as DOS file servers and can be replaced but I really hate to spend the $$$ after having these machines only a year or less. Leslie Mikesell