rrsum@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rick Summerhill) (11/19/90)
I currently have a standard 386 clone machine running ISC v2.02. I also have the X window system package, but not the TCP/IP package. When I called ISC to see how much it would cost me to purchase TCP/IP, I was told they are only selling one for v2.2, not v2.02. Moreover, they didn't know if the current TCP/IP would work with v2.02. Anyone out there know if it does? It is very expensive, also. $495 compared to the complete ESIX system for $825. If one must update to v2.2, then it is even more costly! Recommendations? I'm actually trying to wait till SysVR4 before investing a great deal more in my system. Anyone out there have an ISC TCP/IP for 2.02 they want to sell for a fair price? -- Rick Summerhill Phone: (913)532-6311 CTA, Cardwell Hall FAX: (913)532-5914 Kansas State University Net: rrsum@hermzel.ksu.ksu.edu Manhattan, KS 66506
jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com (Jim Deitch) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov18.173628.21839@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> rrsum@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rick Summerhill) writes: >I currently have a standard 386 clone machine running ISC v2.02. >I also have the X window system package, but not the TCP/IP package. > >When I called ISC to see how much it would cost me to purchase TCP/IP, >I was told they are only selling one for v2.2, not v2.02. Moreover, >they didn't know if the current TCP/IP would work with v2.02. Anyone >out there know if it does? It is very expensive, also. $495 compared >to the complete ESIX system for $825. If one must update to v2.2, >then it is even more costly! Recommendations? I'm actually trying >to wait till SysVR4 before investing a great deal more in my system. > The current HBTCP v1.2 will work with ISC 2.0.2 90%. The only things that I have seen that don't work are the UDP time services and the SLIP. Seems that ISC disagrees with me on the UDP stuff (Dick are you there?) but I have found that it doesn't. The SLIP not working is spelled out in the manual on page 1 or 2. Other than that I have found it to be both faster and more reliable than the version 1.0 (or whatever it was). >Anyone out there have an ISC TCP/IP for 2.02 they want to sell for a >fair price? > Sorry but no. >-- >Rick Summerhill Phone: (913)532-6311 >CTA, Cardwell Hall FAX: (913)532-5914 >Kansas State University Net: rrsum@hermzel.ksu.ksu.edu >Manhattan, KS 66506 -- ARPANET: jadpc!jdeitch@nosc.mil INTERNET: jdeitch@jadpc.nosc.mil UUCP: nosc!jadpc!jdeitch
mjhammel@Kepler.dell.com (Michael J. Hammel) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov18.173628.21839@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>, rrsum@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rick Summerhill) writes: > I currently have a standard 386 clone machine running ISC v2.02. > I also have the X window system package, but not the TCP/IP package. > > When I called ISC to see how much it would cost me to purchase TCP/IP, > I was told they are only selling one for v2.2, not v2.02. Moreover, > they didn't know if the current TCP/IP would work with v2.02. Anyone > out there know if it does? It is very expensive, also. $495 compared > to the complete ESIX system for $825. If one must update to v2.2, > then it is even more costly! Recommendations? I'm actually trying > to wait till SysVR4 before investing a great deal more in my system. > The TCP/IP I have for 2.0.2 is TCP/IP 1.1.2. The latest version is TCP/IP 1.2 (I think). 1.2 works fairly well, but its not completely compatible with other TCP/IP implementations. Specifically, it doesn't seem too happy with System V.4 TCP/IP or SunOS 4.0. Telnet's from the V.4 to a 1.2 system won't complete (they hang). Rlogin's require the -8 option in order to not get things confused when using vi. There are some other things. Basically, I've decided 1.1.2 is more compatible in a heterogenous network. The 1.2 (whats probably being sold with ISC UNIX 2.2) works fairly well with the 1.1.2 (what was sold with the ISC UNIX 2.0.2). It also appears to work fairly well with NCSA Telnet 2.2TN for PC's. Recommendation: if you're going to deal only with ISC-based systems then 1.1.2/1.2 systems should work ok, but if you plan to begin meshing in various flavors of TCP/IP from several vendors I'd use only 1.1.2 (if you can get it). Michael J. Hammel | mjhammel@{Kepler|socrates}.dell.com Dell Computer Corp. | {73377.3467|76424.3024}@compuserve.com #include <disclaim/std> | zzham@ttuvm1.bitnet | uunet!uudell!feynman!mjhammel "oh oh, kwyjeebo on the loose!"
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (11/20/90)
jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com (Jim Deitch) writes: > The current HBTCP v1.2 will work with ISC 2.0.2 90%. The only things > that I have seen that don't work are the UDP time services and the > SLIP. Seems that ISC disagrees with me on the UDP stuff (Dick are you > there?) but I have found that it doesn't... Yah, I'm here, but I'm not your guy. I think you meant Doug. My know- ledge of networking is approximately limited to knowing whom to ask about it (that generally being Doug). The UDP time services problem was (Doug tells me:-) a limit on number of open files in inetd. Either reduce the number of services in use or increase the value of NOFILES in the kernel and build a new one. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 Cellular phones: more deadly than marijuana.
tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) (11/20/90)
In <12431@uudell.dell.com> mjhammel@Kepler.dell.com (Michael J. Hammel) writes: >The TCP/IP I have for 2.0.2 is TCP/IP 1.1.2. The latest version is >TCP/IP 1.2 (I think). 1.2 works fairly well, but its not completely >compatible with other TCP/IP implementations. Specifically, it doesn't >seem too happy with System V.4 TCP/IP or SunOS 4.0. Telnet's from the >V.4 to a 1.2 system won't complete (they hang). Rlogin's require the -8 >option in order to not get things confused when using vi. There are >some other things. Basically, I've decided 1.1.2 is more compatible in >a heterogenous network. Subsequent investigation on this side of the pond shows that the telnetd in 1.2.0 confuses many other telnets. The manual explains that ISC added some extra negotiation parameters (e.g. WINSIZE). To disable them, edit /etc/inetd.conf and add some parameters on the telnetd line (I don't have them to hand, sorry. Maybe later ... :-) Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim "What's the problem? You've got an IQ of six thousand, haven't you?"
mjhammel@Kepler.dell.com (Michael J. Hammel) (11/21/90)
In article <12431@uudell.dell.com>, mjhammel@Kepler.dell.com (Michael J. Hammel) writes: > compatible with other TCP/IP implementations. Specifically, it doesn't > seem too happy with System V.4 TCP/IP or SunOS 4.0. Telnet's from the > V.4 to a 1.2 system won't complete (they hang). Rlogin's require the -8 > option in order to not get things confused when using vi. There are > some other things. Basically, I've decided 1.1.2 is more compatible in > a heterogenous network. > In fairness, I should say I did *not* have problems with Suns to/from 1.2 systems. We were using Suns as controls in some of our tests. I got my data mixed up. The problems we had were specifically from V4 systems to 1.2 systems. Michael J. Hammel | mjhammel@{Kepler|socrates}.dell.com Dell Computer Corp. | {73377.3467|76424.3024}@compuserve.com #include <disclaim/std> | zzham@ttuvm1.bitnet | uunet!uudell!feynman!mjhammel "oh oh, kwyjeebo on the loose!"
karl@naitc.naitc.com (Karl Denninger) (11/21/90)
In article <12431@uudell.dell.com> mjhammel@Kepler.dell.com (Michael J. Hammel) writes: >In article <1990Nov18.173628.21839@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>, >rrsum@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rick Summerhill) writes: >> I currently have a standard 386 clone machine running ISC v2.02. >> I also have the X window system package, but not the TCP/IP package. >> >> When I called ISC to see how much it would cost me to purchase TCP/IP, >> I was told they are only selling one for v2.2, not v2.02. Moreover, >> they didn't know if the current TCP/IP would work with v2.02. Anyone >> out there know if it does? It is very expensive, also. $495 compared >> to the complete ESIX system for $825. If one must update to v2.2, >> then it is even more costly! Recommendations? I'm actually trying >> to wait till SysVR4 before investing a great deal more in my system. >> >The TCP/IP I have for 2.0.2 is TCP/IP 1.1.2. The latest version is >TCP/IP 1.2 (I think). 1.2 works fairly well, but its not completely >compatible with other TCP/IP implementations. Specifically, it doesn't >seem too happy with System V.4 TCP/IP or SunOS 4.0. Telnet's from the >V.4 to a 1.2 system won't complete (they hang). Rlogin's require the -8 >option in order to not get things confused when using vi. There are >some other things. Basically, I've decided 1.1.2 is more compatible in >a heterogenous network. Which is interesting, since we have something like a half-dozen ISC workstations (one on my desk, another being our gateway) and I telnet all the time to/from Suns and it works just fine. These ALL run 2.2 ISC with the latest TCP/IP. No tribble at all. Perhaps you need to look at things like the broadcast address and subnet bits.... or other similar, minor details. Ditto for MIPS systems, PCs running B&WNFS, and more. The new TCP fixes 95% of the problems with interfaces going to sleep on you; this is a MAJOR improvement. The new NFS is also nearly 100% complient with Sun's idea of NFS, this is also a major improvement, and it's much faster. Go with the good stuff. -- Karl Denninger AC Nielsen kdenning@ksun.naitc.com (708) 317-3285 Disclaimer: Contents represent opinions of the author; I do not speak for AC Nielsen on Usenet.