afrlinkv@WPAFB-INFO5.AF.MIL (09/27/89)
Maybe someone out there in the Internet can provide some insight... 1) Is there any reason whatsoever (one word?) to use an RFC 1001,1002 compliant NetBIOS? Sure, it means you're in tune with the DoD guidance to use TCP/IP, but you still can't talk on the Internet - that is all current implementations of RFC compliant NetBIOS implement the Broadcast Nodes method and are delimited by their IP routers (Gateways). This means you're buying more expensive hardware or using lots of host (PC) memory and receiving poorer performance because of the protocol overhead. 2) Why hasn't the ULANA program recognized the above problem? Back in '85 and '86 I was (in my ignorance) a proponent of NetBIOS over TCP/IP and insisted it be part of the ULANA specification. Much to my chagrin, I subsequently realized the error of my ways and have been trying ever since to have that requirement dropped. Unfortunately, Mitre was off in their own world (always has been - always will be?) and refused to listen to sanity. Now, we've got two vendors' products on the APL (or about to be) that are real dogs in performance (it's my understanding that neither the EDS/3COM nor the TRW PC host attachments meet the performance requirements) and yet don't even meet the RFCs or the IBM/Sytek NetBIOS specifications (contact me directly for specifcs). All at a higher cost! 3) One of the ULANA CLINs is to provide specification compliance testing for third party products. Has this ever been exercised? How does one get a compliant product on the APL? How can we help the government save money (ours!) on this program? Am I just ------- in the wind? If anyone can help me out, I'd sure appreciate it! Link Verstegen afrlinkv@WPAFB-INFO5.AF.MIL Integration Manager (405) 942-8884 Network Solutions, Inc. 4350 Will Rogers Pkwy. ** These are MY opinions - ** Suite 100 ** I don't need to pass the ** Oklahoma City, OK 73108 ** buck on this one... ** By the way, I heard a rumor that 10NET had won the Gunter LAN Software Contract. Any comments from the Peanut Gallery?
dcrocker@AHWAHNEE.STANFORD.EDU (Dave Crocker) (09/28/89)
There is no particular reason that netbios over tcp should have poor performance. The one possible exception might be during certain kinds of name resolutions, but these are relatively rare events and I'm not convinced they would be slow. My comment is based on direct experience, not just theory, tho it was pre-RFC1001/2. The work that the committee did to create 1001/2 did not appear to do anything that would limit the applicability of my experience, since I was on that committee. Dave
ljm@TWG.COM (Leo J McLaughlin) (09/29/89)
>Maybe someone out there in the Internet can provide some insight... >1) Is there any reason whatsoever (one word?) to use an RFC 1001,1002 >compliant NetBIOS? Heterogenous networks (sorry, two words). More seriously, NetBIOS was (is?) the only networking interface for DOS supported by many different vendors -- as a result, most PC networking applications which use networking use NetBIOS. It would be nice if all those applications could be used on machines other than PCs. If a readily available TCP/UDP/IP based protocol stack for DOS with an interrupt accessable API had existed in 1982 and had been used as the basis for PC networking products (instead of XNS and later the NetBIOS-NetBEUI standard), none of the this would be necessary. But it didn't happen that way. >This means you're buying more expensive hardware or using lots of host (PC) >memory and receiving poorer performance because of the protocol overhead. Our session NetBIOS over TCP/IP over a dumb board uses 50K and our SMB client over it moves data at 250K/second. Admittedly neither number is optimal, but it isn't that bad for a TCP without header prediction. >2) Why hasn't the ULANA program recognized the above problem?... >3) One of the ULANA CLINs is to provide specification compliance testing >for third party products. Has this ever been exercised? How does one get >a compliant product on the APL? How can we help the government save money >(ours!) on this program? Am I just ------- in the wind? Don't know. enjoy, leo j mclaughlin iii The Wollongong Group ljm@twg.com