[SunRescue] LAN Commmunication (was Sparc 10 cover plates)
Paul.Pries at sonera.com
Paul.Pries at sonera.com
Wed Dec 22 16:53:33 CST 1999
> paul pries wrote:
> > GLeblanc at cu-portland.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > <novell BIAS>
> > > Is this an IP network, IPX, or something else? All of the IPX/SPX
> > > that I've inherited have been HORRIBLY misconfigured, causing some really
> > > bad network performance. However, if you take the time to set up every
> > > device properly when you put it on the network, routed IPX can be really
> > > fast. No decent Unix implemntation that I've found yet though. IP on the
> > > other hand would much rather be quiet, and is sometimes easier to get to
> > > behave. But IP gives you all of this DNS and DHCP garbage, which you
> > > have to deal with on an IPX network.
> > > </novell BIAS>
> > You don't need to run DHCP, just assign static IP
> > addresses. Taken care
> <IPX bias>
> On a network with 700 nodes? Ugh, that sounds ugly. IPX is much easier
> to configure than IP, you just plug in the computer, and you're done
> with configuration. Everybody knows where everybody else is.
> </IPX bias>
> > of that part of the traffic, lets move on to DNS.
> > On a LAN without an
> > internet connection you could run without DNS.
> > Just use hostfiles.
> > Though, this is no option if you have a dynamic
> > network with a lot of
> > hosts changing places...
> > How about Novell? What kind of traffic do get with
> > Novell?
> > Well, isn't there a lot of "announcing services"?
> Depends on how you configure devices and servers. SAP doesn't have to
> be noisy, or all that frequent.
> > How about NDS tree transfers? *grin*
> O.K. these can be ugly, depending on how your replicas are set up. I
> don't REALLY know how all this works, since I haven't taken Netware
> appart since 3.12.
> > Ever tried to set up an IPX network over an ISDN
> > connection?
> No, but 28.8 dialup works ok. :)
> > Microsoft (yuck) networking is even worse...
> Yeah, let's not even open that can of wyrms.
> > > Our network is fairly quiet, with about 700+ nodes. The majority of our
> > > traffic is headed for our internet connection, so it doesn't even get to
> > > switches for our servers, which could be why I don't see any activity.
> > > check out 3Com, Cisco, and a couple of other people for "Layer 3
> > > to see if you can't increase the number of broadcast domains, since it
> > > sounds like it's a fairly big problem. Wow, something on the Sun list
> > > I'm almost qualified to answer... :-)
> > Feels good, doesn't it? *smile*
> > Layer 3 switching really is routing.
> Only that it's faster compared to older routers. :)
> > The
> > difference is that only go
> > through the routing processor once. It works like
> > this:
> > When the first packet arrives from source A with
> > destination B it
> > is fed through the routing processor to find out a
> > path between A and B.
> > The packet is checked against access lists to see
> > if A is allowed to
> > connect to B, and if every thing is OK a thread is
> > created between the
> > interfaces where A and B are connected. All
> > following packets that
> > belong to that thread are thereafter switched
> > through this thread.
> > Cisco has taken this one step further in their
> > bigger routers. They're
> > downloadning theappropriate parts of the routing
> > table to the
> > interface processors, thus making it obsolete to
> > send the packet
> > to the main processor for a routing decision
> > (provided the interface
> > of the source and destination are on the same
> > interfacecontroller).
> Would these be like the 7000 series? We're going to need to replace our
> 2614s with something newer to handle routing of a 9MBit ATM pipe, in all
> likely hood, and we're probably looking at a 7K, or perhaps a PIX.
> Rescue maillist - Rescue at sunhelp.org
More information about the rescue