lindahl@waltz.UUCP (01/08/85)
Another fiber-optics ETHERNET link: CANOGA Data systems. I just had a meeting
with the local (Dallas) rep, and he says that there is an international
office. The home office is at:
21218 Vanowen St.
Canoga Park, CA 91303-2860
(818)888-2003
One of my sister groups is testing the "remote repeaters" now; I'll post
results if there is interest.
THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT, JUST A FORWARDING OF INFORMATION.
Charlie Lindahl
Texas Instruments
ARPA: lindahl%Waltz%TI-CSL@CSNet-Relay
UUCP: {convex!smu, texsun, ut-sally, rice} ! waltz ! lindahlhuggins@waltz.UUCP (02/06/85)
/**** waltz:net.lan / sabre!martin / 5:24 pm Dec 26, 1984 ****/ /*vaxbusters*/ I'm looking for people who have tried to bring up the Excelan Unibus board under Vax 5.0, i about to try but i can't quite see what's the best machine model to start from. I'm also looking for poeple who have tried to use the boards with a standalone system, ie without unix. martin levy. bellcore. /* ---------- */
james@inmet.UUCP (02/20/85)
We have been using Pronet 10Mb for two years, on a mix of 11/70s
and Vaxen. The hardware is trouble-free, it is easy to forget
it is there. We use home-grown datagram-style protocol. The
drivers have been ported to 4.1bsd and 4.2bsd with not very
much trouble. From the programmer's point of view, you push
the bits in here, they come out over there, with nary a problem.
We also have Ethernet and have found it to be much more
troublesome in configuration and operation. I just wish there
were more software support for the Pronet.
----James A.J. Triplett Intermetrics
{esquire,harpo,decvax}!cca!ima!inmet!jamesjames@inmet.UUCP (02/20/85)
I heard rumors of some freebie software out of Tektronix
for TCP/IP on VMS (apparently supporting one of their workstations),
anyone know more??
----James Triplett, Intermetrics
{esquire,harpo,decvax}!cca!ima!inmet!jamestower@inmet.UUCP (05/29/85)
Re: OSI standards
An interesting (and well-written) critique of the OSI is:
"The Elements of Networking Style", M.A.Padlipsky,
Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, USA
(1985).
The book compares the 7+ layer OSI model to the 3 layer Arpanet model,
and discusses the +'s and -'s of both.
The author claims to have written "an insistently non-stodgy technical book",
and has succeeded in my opinion. The book transfers a lot of technical and
historical information on inter-computer networking in non-dry well-written
style. It is also a good introduction to this field.
-len tower UUCP: {bellcore,ima,ihnp4}!inmet!tower
Intermetrics, Inc. INTERNET: ima!inmet!tower@CCA-UNIX.ARPA
USPS: 733 Concord Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
PHONE: +1 (617) 661-1840jad@hpfcla.UUCP (jad) (07/25/85)
> Yes, that's all sounds good, but you still haven't worked out > how to stop news being lost. I don't know what the mail system's like > in the US but in Aust. no matter how you sent it some would be lost or > at least delayed for an extended period of time. One possibility is to have a dedicated service to do this ... perhaps it would be cheaper to hire someone to run tapes back and forth from city to city. (FedEx was the original suggestion, and that's about all they do, pretty reliably, too). But what am I saying? This seems like a huge step backwards. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a boatload of tapes, but think about propagation delay, and the incredible hassles associated with loading a boatload of tapes onto tape drives. Arrrgh. TCP/IP, on the other hand, ain't so bad ... -- jad --
dougm@ICO.UUCP (10/30/85)
/* Written 5:50 pm Oct 28, 1985 by eric@unmvax in ICO:net.dcom */ /* ---------- "Thin Ethernet - (Any Specifications?" ---------- */ > Does a standard exist for the so call "thin Ethernet" which > is getting more and more press these days. This has the same The draft of the IEEE 802.3A standard for 10BASE2 (cheapernet or thin ethernet) was approved by the IEEE Standards Board at their June 85 meeting. It should be circulating within the ISO group by now. You can order it from IEEE for $6.00. The announcement went out a while back since ANSI has adopted it also. IEEE/802a is a supplement to the ANSI/IEEE 802.3-1985 standard and can be ordered from: IEEE 345 East 47th St. New York, NY 10017-2394 Attn: Sandra Phillips This should be what you want. Doug McCallum Interactive Systems Corp. {cbosgd, hao, ima}!ico!dougm
jmg@cernvax.UUCP (11/05/85)
In article <448@rna.UUCP> dan@rna.UUCP (Dan Ts'o) writes: > > We are having problems switching an Ethernet on a DELNI onto a >real Ethernet cable. We have similar problems. It seems not acceptable to mix Interlan and DEC (DEUNA or DEQNA) on the same DELNI, unless the DELNI is stand-alone. For the moment we have fixed it by putting DEC on one DEUNA and Interlan on a different one: seems better. The problem is quite likely that the Interlan controllers are Ethernet 1.0 specs (at least, ours are). We shall do more tests in a week or so, to find the exact cause.
swami@uiucdcsb.UUCP (11/08/85)
another vote for net.os swami@a.cs.uiuc.edu
hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (11/08/85)
You might want to look into TCL's equivalent of the DELNI. We use them for most of our machines. As far as I know, we have never had compatibility problems with it. We tested both it and the DELNI a year or so ago, and decided on TCL because the DELNI wouldn't talk to one or another of our machines.
piet@mcvax.UUCP (11/15/85)
>>We are having problems switching an Ethernet on a DELNI onto a >>real Ethernet cable. >We have similar problems. It seems not acceptable to mix Interlan and >DEC (DEUNA or DEQNA) on the same DELNI, unless the DELNI is stand-alone >The problem is quite likely that the Interlan controllers are Ethernet >1.0 specs (at least, ours are). We've a DEUNA, Interlan's and 3Com's on two DELNIs (in cascade with one of them on Ethernet, which according to the specs is not allowed...) It's all working just fine. The Interlans are Eth.2 spec, the 3Coms are Eth.1. However, another 3Com, when connected to the DELNI, screws up the whole net. Put it on an Eth.1 transceiver and it's ok. Matter of luck... In general don't connect Eth.1 stuff to DELNIs. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@mcvax.UUCP)
dougm@ico (04/07/86)
> /* Written 12:42 pm Apr 5, 1986 by libes@nbs-amrf.UUCP in ico:net.lan */ > /* ---------- "Re: ASN.1, ANSI/ISO dIs 8824, CCITT" ---------- */ > If you want to get a tape, you should contact NTIS, (301) 487-4650. The correct number for NTIS is (703) 487-4650. Doug McCallum Interactive Systems Corp {hao, cbosgd, ima}!ico!dougm
ch@gipsy (04/30/86)
We have been running ISO and TCP-Ip in parallel for some time now at INRIA. This will be reported in the next USENIX conference. Each has pro and contras, so lets state the advantages: For TCP-IP: Already established, comes with a lot of applications likes FTP, TELNET, RLOGIN, SMTP, RSH, etc. Available today on a large range of computer. This is not the case of ISO: the only standard application available today is X400, and in a certain sense the Teletex. For OSI: Getting agreed upon by a large number of manufacturer. Technically much better than TCP-IP, which hardly matches the services of the OSI transport, but does none of the functionalities of the session or presentation layers. We are running OSI on X25 and on Ethernet. We use X25 layer 3 on Ethernet, according to DIS8881, above IEEE802.2 LLC1. We establish X400 connections on an operational basis we other systems in UK and Germany; note that the OSI was independantly developped on these systems. It is extremely easy to set up a random connection using the OSI protocol and X25 networks, whilst to do the same with IP you have to formally interconnect networks. From an architectural point of view, ISO gives you the choice between connection oriented and connectionless networks. In the latter case of ISO-IP & TC-4, you have exactly the same repartition of function has with IP & TCP, with one advantage to IP due to short headers: the IP adresses are 32 bits, while the ISO NSAP addresses can be 20 bytes. On the other hand, there is a possibility with TC4 to negociate the usage of transport level checksum on a per-connection basis. We have measured almost the same throughputs for TCP and the OSI session, in file transfer applications. The OSI code is slightly smaller than the TCP code in the kernel (both are implemented as "sockets" protocols). Christian Huitema (<huitema@gipsy.uucp>)
james@inmet.UUCP (05/06/86)
iRx: 2 transceivers 15meters ethernet cable 2 terminators ----james
@hpislx.UUCP (05/06/86)
This message is empty.