roe@unibase.uucp (Roe Peterson) (05/31/91)
This may be an old question - please forgive me if so. I've got an arcnet novell 2.20 setup; is there some way to set up the dedicated server to route incoming arcnet ip-in-arcnet packets as ip packets over an ethernet? The goal is to permit telnet (etc) to access a unix ethernet without buying ethercards for all the servers. -- Roe Peterson uunet!sobeco!unibase!roe roe@unibase.UUCP
barrett@Daisy.EE.UND.AC.ZA (Alan P Barrett) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.060428.1643@unibase.uucp>, roe@unibase.uucp (Roe Peterson) writes: > I've got an arcnet novell 2.20 setup; is there some way to > set up the dedicated server to route incoming arcnet ip-in-arcnet > packets as ip packets over an ethernet? I don't know what you mean by "the dedicated server". Do you really mean ip-over-arcnet (as per RFC 1051), or ip-over-ethernet-over-ipx-over-arcnet (ip-over-ethernet as per RFC 894, ethernet-over-ipx as supplied by the IPXPKT packet driver, and ipx-over-arcnet as supplied by Novell), or ip-over-802.2-over-ipx-over arcnet (ip-over-802 as per RFC 1042, 802.2-over-ipx as per RFC 1132) or something else? Not much software supports ip-over-arcnet (ka9q is the only one I know of, though there are probably others). Woolongong WIN-TCP uses ip-over-802.2-over-ipx, and can route between that and ip-over-ethernet, but I don't know of anything else that uses ip-over-802.2-over-ipx. Many people are using ip-over-(ipxpkt)ethernet-over-ipx, and this is what I would recommend. It works well, and has the advantage that software can treat it just like any other ethernet packet driver. In particular, PC Route or KA9Q can be set up to route between it and ip-over-(genuine)ethernet, and all the popular packet driver applications work with it. > The goal is to permit telnet (etc) to access a unix ethernet without > buying ethercards for all the servers. With recent versions of IPXPKT, a single PC-based IP router (PC Route or KA9Q) can be used to link your Novell net to your TCP/IP ethernet, even if your Novell net is actually composed of several networks joined by Novell "bridges" (which are really IPX routers). --apb Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
dll@sirius.cc.utexas.edu (Don Loflin) (06/05/91)
>> I've got an arcnet novell 2.20 setup; is there some way to >> set up the dedicated server to route incoming arcnet ip-in-arcnet >> packets as ip packets over an ethernet? If you upgrade to Netware 386 3.11, you can use it as a router for IP from ARCnet to ethernet. Alternatively, but not as reliable, you could use PCroute or KA9Q. >Not much software supports ip-over-arcnet (ka9q is the only one I know >of, though there are probably others). Novell's LAN Workplace supports ip-over-arcnet, which works with the IP router in 3.11 NetWare. It includes telnet, ftp, etc, and there is an NFS implementation available. (Beame & Whiteside). If ODIPKT becomes available with support for ARCNET framing, packet driver apps can be used with a 3.11 router. You could use PCroute or KA9Q with either scheme (ip over arcnet, or ip inside of ipx), but with the Netware server, you can only use ip-over arcnet. We've had problems with KA9Q crashing/locking up a lot, and thus opted for the NetWare router. >Many people are using ip-over-(ipxpkt)ethernet-over-ipx, and this is >what I would recommend. It works well, and has the advantage that >software can treat it just like any other ethernet packet driver. In >particular, PC Route or KA9Q can be set up to route between it and >ip-over-(genuine)ethernet, and all the popular packet driver >applications work with it. >> The goal is to permit telnet (etc) to access a unix ethernet without >> buying ethercards for all the servers. > >With recent versions of IPXPKT, a single PC-based IP router (PC Route or >KA9Q) can be used to link your Novell net to your TCP/IP ethernet, even >if your Novell net is actually composed of several networks joined by >Novell "bridges" (which are really IPX routers). That is the advantage in using IPX-encapsulation: it's transparent to the ipx network topology; however, as I said, then you're depending on software which is likely less reliable, and certainly slower. You also have to dedicate a machine (& ethernet card) to the task of routing, which is O.K if you have the extra resources, but may not be an option for some. If you've already got a 3.11 server, it makes more sense to use it for IP routing. - - - - - - - Don Loflin Univ. of Texas at Austin Computation Center dll@emx.utexas.edu (512) 471-3241 "A little birdie whispered it to me. Honestly! It made me say it!"