brahms@spp2.UUCP (01/11/85)
Is it possible to mix 3com and Interlan boards on the same net? With
3com going belly-up (they did, didn't they?) a friend has two new vaxes
which are not on their net (they can't seem to find any 3com boards).
Any info you could provide would be helpful.
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@usc-eclcdarrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) (01/11/85)
Yes, you can intermix Interlan and 3Com on one net (we have Interlan in our
VAX, 3Com in one Sun, Sun's own with Xerox chip in another Sun, Xerox in
Xerox Lisp machines). At the packet level everybody talks to everybody.
At higher levels, not everything talks (much) to everybody else, but that's
because of different protocols (a higher-level software issue). That's the
whole point of the Ethernet standard--everybodies equipment interconnects.
I don't believe 3Com has gone bust, just decided to concentrate on Ethernets
for micros; thus the dropping of boards for minis.
[There have been reports of some incompatibilities between certain
controllers and tranceivers, but once you have a tranceiver which works with
the controller to which it is (directly) attached, it talks to every other
tranceiver on the net OK]
--
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
!sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPAgnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (01/14/85)
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPA (Darrel J. Van Buer, System Development Corp.) says: > Yes, you can intermix Interlan and 3Com on one net (we have Interlan in our > VAX, 3Com in one Sun, Sun's own with Xerox chip in another Sun, Xerox in > Xerox Lisp machines). Sun's own Ethernet board uses a buggy Intel 82586 chip, not a Xerox chip.
hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (01/14/85)
Mixing different ethernet boards is entirely possible, just make sure
that each board uses the appropriate transceiver, i.e. do NOT connect a
3com Xceiver box to an Interlan board, or v.v. Some crossconnects WOULD work,
as long as they follow the same ethernet spec, e.g. both Xceiver and
controller use the IEEE 803.2 spec. 3com isn't ( supposedly )
up to the most modern standards, so Interlan board with 3com xceiver
wouldn't work. But all xceivers talk to each other nicely.
SO: Your friend can go on buying Interlan stuff ( or DEC for that matter )
without having to scrap his old 3coms.
Ain't standards wunnerful?
--
Hans Albertsson, USENET/uucp: {decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
Real World: TeleLOGIC AB, Box 1001, S-14901 Nynashamn,SWEDENjim@mcvax.UUCP (Jim McKie) (01/15/85)
In article <231@log-hb.UUCP> hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) writes: >Mixing different ethernet boards is entirely possible, just make sure >that each board uses the appropriate transceiver, i.e. do NOT connect a >3com Xceiver box to an Interlan board, or v.v. Some crossconnects WOULD work, >as long as they follow the same ethernet spec, e.g. both Xceiver and >controller use the IEEE 803.2 spec. 3com isn't ( supposedly ) >up to the most modern standards, so Interlan board with 3com xceiver >wouldn't work. But all xceivers talk to each other nicely. Writing this on a net which consists of DEUNA, Interlan and 3Com interfaces, with one of the 3Com boards connected with an Interlan NT100 transceiver, and the Interlan NI1010A with a 3Com transceiver, I would say you are not entirely correct. In general, there are two versions, Ethernet-1 and Ethernet-2 (IEEE 802.3). These can, as Hans says, co-exist happily on the same cable, but don't try mixing an Ethernet-1 board with an Ethernet-2 transceiver or vice-versa, e.g. a 3Com board with a DEC H4000 transceiver. The Interlan NT100 is supposed to work with both Ethernet-1 and Ethernet-2 boards, although this may require strapping inside the transceiver. Here is a table of what works/doesn't-work from personal experience: Transceiver | 3Com NT100 H4000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Board | | 3Com | works works doesn't DEUNA | doesn't works works NI1010A | works doesn't doesn't What is confusing to us (and the reason the transceivers are swapped) is that the NI1010A won't work with the NT100 transceiver. Interlan is also wondering... From the multi-racial net of the CWI, Jim McKie (mcvax!jim) Jaap Akkerhuis (mcvax!jaap)
hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (01/16/85)
In article <412@mcvax.UUCP> jim@mcvax.UUCP (Jim McKie) writes: >Writing this on a net which consists of DEUNA, Interlan and 3Com interfaces, >with one of the 3Com boards connected with an Interlan NT100 transceiver, and >the Interlan NI1010A with a 3Com transceiver, I would say you are not entirely >correct. ..... >What is confusing to us (and the reason the transceivers are swapped) is that >the NI1010A won't work with the NT100 transceiver. Interlan is also wondering... Sounds decidedly nasty... Some ( vicarious ) experience from around here indicates that my original statement should be correct as of today, but there has been problems with the NT100-s, simply dying on people. Supposedly this is fixed now ( and Interlan supposedly got the people mentioned above out of their fix within a few hours, no shadow on those worthies ), but obviously I'll have to tread easy with my upcoming installation of just that, NI1010 vs. 3com... -- Hans Albertsson, USENET/uucp: {decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans Real World: TeleLOGIC AB, Box 1001, S-14901 Nynashamn,SWEDEN
ahi@dlinj.UUCP (Anders Hillbo) (01/18/85)
We first got 2 InterLan boards and 3 new InterLan xcvrs, the new
xvrs all cease working after being connected between 1-3 mins. We persuaded
our local dealer to get the old InterLan xcvr and then everything worked.
In the mean time I used my Xerox (TCL vampire) xcvr with the InterLan board,
that worked wery well.
On compatiblity: We have Sun 3-Com, Xerox TCL and (old) InterLan xvrs
on the same net. It works perfectly.
--
Anders Hillbo, working at NADA, KTH.
(Dept of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science at the
Royal Institute of Technology)
UUCP: {decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!ttds!ahi
ARPA: decvax!mcvax!enea!ttds!ahi@berkeley.ARPA
or Anders_Hillbo_NADA%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPAsmb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (01/19/85)
We've used a 3Com board with a DEC DELNI, which I assume is compatible with the H4000. But that failure mode is a potentially critical timing matter, so slight differences could mean a lot. --Steve Bellovin
brahms@spp2.UUCP (01/23/85)
[}{]
I would like to thank everyone who responded to my query about mixing 3com
and Interlan boards. The information should prove to be very helpful to my
friend.
Once again, thanx.
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@usc-eclcjaap@mcvax.UUCP (Jaap Akkerhuis) (01/23/85)
In article <720@dlinj.UUCP> ahi@dlinj.UUCP (Anders Hillbo) writes: > >We first got 2 InterLan boards and 3 new InterLan xcvrs, the new >xvrs all cease working after being connected between 1-3 mins. We persuaded >our local dealer to get the old InterLan xcvr and then everything worked. >In the mean time I used my Xerox (TCL vampire) xcvr with the InterLan board, >that worked wery well. > Today the distributor of Interlan popped up again. They swapped the controller (a NI1010A). Suprise: The new Interlan board (Same type as the previous one, same revision of the PROMS, only different in serial number as far as I could see) could talk with its transceiver (a NT100). Looks like the problem is in (some of) the controller boards, and not in the transceiver. Jaap Akkerhuis, CWI (mcvax!jaap).
hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (02/08/85)
In article <720@dlinj.UUCP> ahi@dlinj.UUCP (Anders Hillbo) writes: > >We first got 2 InterLan boards and 3 new InterLan xcvrs, the new >xvrs all cease working after being connected between 1-3 mins. We persuaded >our local dealer to get the old InterLan xcvr and then everything worked. >In the mean time I used my Xerox (TCL vampire) xcvr with the InterLan board, >that worked wery well. > >On compatiblity: We have Sun 3-Com, Xerox TCL and (old) InterLan xvrs >on the same net. It works perfectly. We recently got the stuff installed, that is we had a SUN 2/120 with 3com, and bought a NI1010A + NT100 xcvr + all the cabling from the local Interlan reps. Unlike Anders, I had no real difficulties. The only bad bit about it all was having to wait 3 weeks for the Belden ether cable. ScanCopter, the local rep, was nice about it all the way, promising beforehand to switch anything that didn't work out, giving an extra piece of cable away for practising cutting and soldering on, giving us a barrel connector, things like that. I installed it all myself, and turned the stuff on, rebooted, and voila, no problems at all. Rcp and rlogin worked right away. Rwho will NEVER work, it seems, talk is ok, mazewar kills Suns, all is thus in the expected state of confusion.... There were nothing like what was in everybody elses horror stories. We never could test wether Scancopter actually would have switched tranceivers.. I have no connection with Interlan or it's local rep apart from being a reasonably satisfied customer. Just thought I'd tell a story somewhat nicer to Interlan's reputation. Next month we'll look at NP100, switching from NI1010. Anybody have any experience with that beast yet? -- Hans Albertsson, USENET/uucp: {decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans Real World: TeleLOGIC AB, Box 1001, S-14901 Nynashamn,SWEDEN
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/09/85)
> We recently got the stuff installed, that is we had a SUN 2/120 with 3com, > and bought a NI1010A + NT100 xcvr + all the cabling from the local Interlan > reps. ... > I installed it all myself, and turned the stuff on, rebooted, and voila, no > problems at all. Rcp and rlogin worked right away. Rwho will NEVER work, it > seems, ... "rwho" is frequently a pain in the fundament, because it relies on 1) broadcasting working and 2) a machine receiving its own broadcast packets. 3Com's UNIBUS ethernet controllers don't receive their own packets; the driver kludges around this by shoving broadcast packets into the loopback driver. We had to do the same on our Power 6/32 with ACC Ethernet controllers. We also have an Integrated Solutions machine on our Ethernet and it doesn't seem to be successfully broadcasting "rwho" packets; it seems to be receiving our VAXes and Power 6's "rwho" packets OK. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/10/85)
> We also have an Integrated Solutions machine on our Ethernet and it > doesn't seem to be successfully broadcasting "rwho" packets; it seems > to be receiving our VAXes and Power 6's "rwho" packets OK. The problem was that the Ethernet interface wasn't active when "rwhod" came up; restarting "rwhod" made the problem go away. Never Mind... Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy