[comp.protocols.tcp-ip] Ungermann-Bass terminal servers and DNS

ittai@VX2.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) (12/08/88)

In release 1 of UB's NETONE/TCP product for terminal servers, 
which relied on IEN-116 name servers, there was a configuration
option for a default domain name.  In release 16, which now uses
DNS, this configuration option was removed.

End-users must now use fully-qualified hostnames for local (intra-
domain) hosts.  This is unacceptable to us.

We have worked around the problem, for the moment, by using Bind's
"domain" option.  But, the Bind 4.8 documentation explicitly warns
that "this is an obsolete facility which will be removed from future
releases".

One of our networking people contacted UB Customer Support who
apparently wouldn't even acknowledge that this was a problem.
Our local support person was also contacted and promised "to get
back to us".

Perhaps someone at UB engineering is listening.  If not, caveat emptor.

-Ittai

PS: Ron, does Rutgers still have these boxes?  Are there any other
    NIU-1x0 customers out there?

kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (12/08/88)

In article <CMM.0.88.597524925.ittai@vx2.GBA.NYU.EDU>
 ittai@VX2.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) writes:
>In release 1 of UB's NETONE/TCP product for terminal servers, 
>which relied on IEN-116 name servers, there was a configuration
>option for a default domain name.  In release 16, which now uses
>DNS, this configuration option was removed.
>
>End-users must now use fully-qualified hostnames for local (intra-
>domain) hosts.  This is unacceptable to us.
>
>Perhaps someone at UB engineering is listening.  If not, caveat emptor.
>
	The U-B User Group is listening, at least one member is (me).

	I am willing to forward specific requests to U-B at the next
User Group on behalf of members of the internet community as part of
my function on the Technical Advisory Group.  The next meeting is at
the end of January.  Of course, all U-B users are invited to come to
Monterey and participate.

	I am planning to migrate my XNS NIU-180/130s to TCP and
appreciate hearing about the residual problems with the U-B s/w.

	I understand (from U-B people at InterOp) that they have a
problem with the resolver not accepting nonauthoritative responses.

	I would love to put together a list of "bugs" to take to U-B.
It is my general understanding that most of the problems remaining in
the U-B functionality (as with most other vendors) is in the DNS part,
the resolver, and in booting/network management functionality.

	There is also a bitnet list (NETONE@UKCC) that is specifically
for Ungermann-Bass Users, if anyone is interested.

	You may email direct to me at:

	kwe@bu-it.bu.edu
	itkwe@buacca on bitnet   [you run tcp/telnet?]

	Thanks.