mead@UHURA.CC.ROCHESTER.EDU (Ted Mead) (09/22/89)
Folks: We are in the process of developing some recommendations, within the University, for various components of networking - one of which is a network operating system. I have a few questions that I would appreciate peoples comments on. 1) Whenever all of the OSI-ISO application level services are defined and implemented, it will rid the need of "network operating systems" (i.e. Novell, Banyan, 3COM etc.). Do you think this is accurate or am I missing a function of the network operating system (other than the operating system) that will not be provided in ISO application layer services. 2) What exactly is LAN Manager? What was the motivation for it's development? My understanding is that it is another session through application layer "standard" with hooks for OS/2. 3) What is the relationship between SAA and LAN Manager? I see these as conflicting architectures, yet IBM seems to be touting both? 4) Is there any reason why LAN Manager couldn't run on top of another OS (UNIX, VMS, VM, MVS, ...)? Or is it tightly tied to OS/2? 5) What network and transport layer does LAN Manager run over? Are those protocols also part of LAN Manager? Couldn't LAN Manager use TCP/IP? 6) How are typical PC network operating systems different from say using PC/NFS? I mean why not just scrap the idea of another protocol stack and proprietary network operating system in favor of NETBIOS over standard TCP/IP? I understand the RFC exists for this but I was trying to make sure I understand the motivation for it. 7) NETBIOS would run on top of TCP correct? I have seen notes indicating that TCP/IP would run on top of NETBIOS, but that would be a transport and ip protocol running on top of session? Is that what is really true? I guess the root of all of these questions is how can you recommend a network operating systems when there are so many alternatives and the wave of the future is STANDARDS? What am I missing? If you don't feel like formulating and writing a response, please feel free to call me. Thanks, Ted (mead@cc.rochester.edu) University of Rochester - Computing Center (716)275-7325
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (09/23/89)
In article <8909211705.AA16247@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> mead@UHURA.CC.ROCHESTER.EDU (Ted Mead) writes: >2) What exactly is LAN Manager? What was the motivation for it's >development? My understanding is that it is another session through >application layer "standard" with hooks for OS/2. LAN Manager is for OS/2 (and eventually for Unix). The motivation for its development is that it takes advantage of OS/2 features, and so has more features and improved performance over DOS. >3) What is the relationship between SAA and LAN Manager? I see these as >conflicting architectures, yet IBM seems to be touting both? SAA is a much more global thing, composed of several sets of rules, protocols, and recommendations that allow users to develop applications that can be easily ported from one IBM family to another. IBM is not really 'touting' LAN Manager; it's touting OS/2 Extended Edition, a version of OS/2 with built-in communications and database capability. OS/2 EE incorporates some technology from the LAN Manager that IBM licensed from Microsoft. >4) Is there any reason why LAN Manager couldn't run on top of another >OS (UNIX, VMS, VM, MVS, ...)? Or is it tightly tied to OS/2? Work is underway by HP and Microsoft to do a Unix LAN Manager. I am not aware of any other implementations, but I don't know of any reason why there couldn't be. -- "Girl?! Don't you call *me* 'Girl'! I got a foot of cunt, a number two washtub full of tit, and enough hair on my pussy to weave an Indian blanket, and you call me 'Girl'??? paraphrased from "Texas Crude: The How-to on Talkin' Texan," by Ken Weaver.
mead@UHURA.CC.ROCHESTER.EDU (Ted Mead) (09/27/89)
Everyone: Thanks for all of your comments. If you have more please keep them coming! Let me try a more direct question and then a few more general ones. 1) If you were to select a NOS that could interoperate with hosts supporting the major operating systems (UNIX, VMS, VMS, VM, DOS, OS/2, Finder), which one would you select? 2) Where can I get my hands on the LAN Manager specification? 3) Please clarify my understanding of LAN Manger. I will try to explain it relative to the OSI model and try to work my way down. From all of your comments and some of my own opinions... LAN Manager is an OSI (not ISO) Application layer API. LAN Manager has it own OSI (not ISO) presentation layer protocol. LAN Manager is written primarily to use NETBIOS and Named Pipes as it's session layer protocol. I guess LAN Manager may also include a session layer, whether it be NETBIOS or Named Pipes is up to the implementation. Is that right? From there down, it really depends on what transport/network protocol NETBIOS or Named Pipes uses. If NETBIOS or Named Pipes is part of LAN Manager, what transport/network layer protocol is is written to use. More specifically, what transport/network protocol does the LAN Manager NETBIOS or Named Pipes use. [It's starting to get confusing again :)!] If LAN Manager doesn't specify a Transport/Network protocol, I would assume that it could use any vendor product, such as Excelan's or CMC's "smart cards". If it did use another vendors transport/network protocol then the vendor of the protocol would have to make sure that it supported NDIS. (What about OLDI or maybe FTP Software packet driver - am I thankful for standards!). After going through this confusing scenerio, it sounds like the LAN Manager Spec. should just specify all seven layers of the protocol stack! That would, I think, rid some of the confusion. Was one of LAN Manager's objectives to provide a non-proprietary networking environment for any operating system for the interim before the ISO protocols are a reality. On the other hand, why did we need LAN Manager when we have a tcp/ip based protocol stack [I would REALLY appreciate any comments on this]? Thanks, Ted