crum@CS.UTAH.EDU (Gary L. Crum) (01/05/88)
Neither KIP nor the Kinetics "combined" (EtherTalk&UDP routing) code seems to have all the answers when it comes to LocalTalk<->Ethernet bridging. Are there groups out there adding EtherTalk support to the KIP code generously provided by Bill Croft? Or, will CAP someday work with the gateway code of Kinetics? Does Kinetics have plans to incorporate dynamic IP address allocation into their combined code? At Utah the CS Department runs UNIX with TCP/IP on ethernet almost exclusively. We are running KIP 09/87 in a FastPath in order to take advantage of CAP and the dynamic IP address allocation mechanism of KIP that works well with NCSA Telnet. However, the need for EtherTalk support in LocalTalk<->Ethernet (KFPS) bridges is clear. The Center for Engineering Design department here uses the Kinetics combined gateway code along with the AlisaTalk product for their VAX/VMS systems. Utah has a class B Internet and wants to use 8 bits as a subnet number, but if each new LocalTalk network is assigned a full subnet (as we understand the Kinetics code requires), we will be wasting many IP addresses. If you have thought about and solved problems like these, please share your experiences. Gary
elwell@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Clayton Elwell) (01/06/88)
crum@CS.UTAH.EDU (Gary L. Crum) writes:
their VAX/VMS systems. Utah has a class B Internet and wants to use 8 bits
as a subnet number, but if each new LocalTalk network is assigned a full
subnet (as we understand the Kinetics code requires), we will be wasting
many IP addresses. If you have thought about and solved problems
like these, please share your experiences.
Gary
Well, the Kinetics gateway code can handle smaller subnets perfectly
well. I've personally set up gateways with two-bit wide subnets, and
so on. If you send me a concrete example of what you want, I'll try
to show you waht to do. I will admit that figuring out the options is
a little arcane if you're not used to it, though.
The only major problem I have with the combined gateway is that it
evidently does not respond to ARPs for hosts on its subnet (sort of
like promiscuous ARP), as does the KIP gateway. Since all of our
routers depend on promiscuous ARP or RIP, this makes it tough to
telnet around to things on our local (highly subnetted) network.
Sigh.
--
Clayton M. Elwell
UUCP: ...!cbosgd!cis.ohio-state.edu!elwell
ARPA: elwell@ohio-state.arpa (if you feel lucky...)gp@lll-lcc.aRpA (George Pavel) (01/06/88)
in article <8801042306.AA24931@cs.utah.edu>, crum@CS.UTAH.EDU (Gary L. Crum) says: > > Neither KIP nor the Kinetics "combined" (EtherTalk&UDP routing) code seems > to have all the answers when it comes to LocalTalk<->Ethernet bridging. > ... > their VAX/VMS systems. Utah has a class B Internet and wants to use 8 bits > as a subnet number, but if each new LocalTalk network is assigned a full > subnet (as we understand the Kinetics code requires), we will be wasting > many IP addresses. If you have thought about and solved problems like these, > please share your experiences. > We use the Kinetics combined gateway code. It allows you to specify the length and starting position in bits of the subnet address. We have a class B address and tend to assign 8 bit "subnets" (we don't actually use subnets, but we assign numbers as if we did). We subdivided one of these "subnets" to be half normal and half Kinetics by assigning a subnet mask of 9 bits starting at bit 7 (the most significant bit of the least significant byte). In particular, addresses 128.115.21.1 through 128.115.21.127 are on the Ethernet side of the Kinetics box, and 128.115.21.128 through 128.115.21.255 are on the Localtalk side. By setting the length and starting bit of the subnet mask appropriately you could assign even smaller chunks to the Localtalk side. George Pavel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808 L-68 (was gp@lll-lcc.arpa) Livermore, CA 94550 Internet: gp@lll-lcc.llnl.gov (415)422-4262 UUCP: ihnp4!lll-lcc!gp
gp@lll-lcc.aRpA (George Pavel) (01/07/88)
> The only major problem I have with the combined gateway is that it > evidently does not respond to ARPs for hosts on its subnet (sort of > like promiscuous ARP), as does the KIP gateway. Since all of our > -- > Clayton M. Elwell The combined gateway code we use (Ethertalk 1.2 I believe) does respond to ARPs on the Ethernet side for hosts on the Localtalk side. I seem to recall that this was true for some older versions of the code as well. George Pavel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808 L-68 (was gp@lll-lcc.arpa) Livermore, CA 94550 Internet: gp@lll-lcc.llnl.gov (415)422-4262 UUCP: ihnp4!lll-lcc!gp