[comp.protocols.tcp-ip] LM/X and RFC1001

whwb@ciba-geigy.ch (Hans W. Barz) (02/04/91)

Since we are interested in LM/X I tried to find out, who has really
implemented the RFC1001 correctly. RFC1001 has some nice mechanism build in to
avoid broadcast over internets. The interface on the 'otherwise broadcasting'
client sends a request to the domain server instead. New servers announce
their server capabilities to the domain server as well - this is kind of a new
feature for DNS (interactive update from client).

As a matter of fact no one seems to have implemented it. Only Ungermann/Bass
seems to have plans to do it and they are also delivering an interface to LAN
Manager.

Has somebody more information on that ?

Hans W. Barz, R.1045.3.34, CIBA-GEIGY, 4002 Basel, Switzerland 
   Internet/uucp-Mail: whwb@CIBA-GEIGY.CH
   X.400: C=CH;A=ARCOM;P=CIBA-GEIGY;OU=CHCGBS30;S=BARZ;G=HANS;I=W
   phone: +41/61/6974520
   fax: +41/61/6973288 

martino@logitek.co.uk (Martin O'Nions) (02/08/91)

whwb@ciba-geigy.ch (Hans W. Barz) writes:

>Since we are interested in LM/X I tried to find out, who has really
>implemented the RFC1001 correctly. RFC1001 has some nice mechanism build in to
>avoid broadcast over internets. The interface on the 'otherwise broadcasting'
>client sends a request to the domain server instead. New servers announce
>their server capabilities to the domain server as well - this is kind of a new
>feature for DNS (interactive update from client).

>As a matter of fact no one seems to have implemented it. Only Ungermann/Bass
>seems to have plans to do it and they are also delivering an interface to LAN
>Manager.

>Has somebody more information on that ?

I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly, RFC1001 does allow for only
a subset of the three transmission types to be implemented (although the
usefulness of such a system could be questioned). A recent post stating that
Hewlett-Packard's implementation worked across different logical IP networks
would appear to imply that HP do provide the Datagram and Name Service
handlers necessary for P and M type topologies - it was on this point that
our attempts to link 3Com's RFC NetBIOS LAN Manager server, and SCO's ODT
client failed, despite attempts to configure a NetBIOS agent. We still
don't know if either of the implementations supports the agent, or if
we simply couldn't find out how to use it properly......

I look forward to a full implementation from somebody.

Martin

--
DISCLAIMER: All My Own Work (Unless stated otherwise)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin O'Nions            Logitek Group Support      martino@logitek.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Auntie did you feel no pain / Falling from that willow tree?
     Could you do it, please again / 'Cos my friend here didn't see.
         (Harry Graham - Ruthless Rhymes for Heartless Homes)