[comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc] U of MN NetBIOS Gateway to Internet

amit@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Neta Amit) (05/30/88)

We are running a PC-LAN of some 20 nodes, with a gateway to the
main departmental Ethernet.  A dedicated AT with 3C501 card serves
as a gateway and mail server (no, we don't use POP), as well as 
file server and print server for the IBM PC Network it's running.

The Gateway software has been developed locally, and our ip/tcp is
derived from MIT's and CMU's pc/ip. Mail was first installed over a
year ago, Telnet is a few months old, FTP is in development. The
machines are fairly loaded, but the load on the gateway is light.

The gateway does as little a processing as possible, e.g. incoming
packets are sent immediately to their destination, where they are
assembled.  As a result, the gateway's capacity is much better than
that reported in similar projects.

Last night we did a little experiemnt which might be of some
interest to this newsgroup. We tried to overload the gateway, by
connecting 14 nodes to it. Two nodes sent mail messages consisting
of the file /etc/hosts (.25MB). The other 12 were logged in
remotely, mostly to local machines, cat'ing /etc/hosts one by one,
in a staggerring fashion.  When we turned the debugging mechanism
on to trace packets at the gateway, we noticed that remote sessions
were running at a reasonable speed, where as Mail was flowing very
slowly.  When the 10th node started to cat, the gateway choked and
died, due to a previously undetected bug. In part, this was due
packet buffer being full.

The buffer's capacity is 20 packets: 4 are permanently assigned to
Mail, 2 in 2 out; another 2 are also dedicated; 14 are for telnet/ftp.
The software is executing in the Small memory model, close to the limit,
hence expansion of the buffer is not very likely.

We then invoked a second gateway. We have the capability to statically
assign different nodes to different gateways on the same subnet, with
no overlapping. The second gateway is a standard AT node, NOT a file
and print server of the PC-LAN. Reconfiguration requires rebooting.
The improvement was instantaneous. Mail began to flow 8 times faster.
Gateway buffers were only half-full. No problem has been noticed.

--Neta Amit (amit@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu)
  University of Minnesota CSci

				   


-- 
  Neta Amit 
  U of Minnesota CSci
  Arpanet: amit@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu