Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!csun!mx.csun.edu!mst From: mst@mx.csun.edu (Michael Temkin) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: Need help with Telneting across Zones with Fastpath Message-ID: <1990Nov26.142922.24989@csun.edu> Date: 26 Nov 90 14:29:22 GMT References: <1990Nov21.034809.23021@csun.edu> <1990Nov25.000830.9840@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@csun.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: mst@secs.csun.edu (Michael Temkin) Organization: School of Engineering and Computer Science, CSU Northridge Lines: 104 First, I would like to apologize for the length of this article, but in order to not be taken out of context, I have supplied the original posting. Mike. In article <1990Nov25.000830.9840@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu (Pete Resnick) writes: >mst@mx.csun.edu (Michael Temkin) writes: >>FastPaths and GatorBoxes ONLY BRIDGE IP TRAFFIC THAT ARE WITHIN THEIR >>STATIC OR DYNAMIC RANGES. If you IICX's IP address is not maintained >>by the box, IT WILL NOT forward it. > >This is not Jim's Problem. It is not IP that is at issue here at all, >but Appletalk. And I assume that he has the static and dynamic ranges >set properly on his Fastpath (You did check that, right Jim?). Either >way, your answer says nothing to his problem. > >> (Sorry for all the caps, but I am >>trying to stress a point in stupidity on the part of Kinetics and Cayman.) > >So now that you found somewhere to grind your axe, what is the problem >here. I certainly don't see why it is STUPID of bridges to do this!! >Aside from being to spec, it might be quite nice to control which IP >addresses your Macintosh's get I agree whole-heartedly in regards to dynamically assigned ones... > and certainly is unacceptable to forward >all IP traffic to the localtalk side. If the problem you are complaining >about is that you need to specify a range and cannot use single addresses >(i.e. configured from the Mac or the like), maybe you want to mention >this to one of the companies in question. Cayman has been very helpful >and the person I have been speaking to has been talking to the engineers >about this as a down the road design change. Stupidity is a stupid charge. > >Pete Resnick (...so what is a mojo, and why would one be rising?) You are partially correct. Here is the original posting... >Help! I am trying to telnet from a Mac IIcx in one zone through a Fastpath 4 >in another zone and I can't find any zones on the Ethernet backbone. Here >is my setup: > >MAc IICX ------------Shiva Netbridge------------Fastpath ===============Host > ATAlk Atalk Ethernet > >The Mac IIcx can't seem to find the host. I am using Stanfords MacIP 4.0 >with MacTCP. I have the Fastpath set up for static addressing and everything >is Phase II. Any machine *between* the Netbridge and the Fastpath has no >problem telneting or FTPing, etc. > >Jim Harfst 1. If you read Jim's posting, he is trying to use MacIP to telnet and such, as far as I know this has to do with IP. True, his problem might be the NetBridge, phase II, or a dozen other factors, but to say it has nothing to do with IP is clearly incorrect. 2. If you read what I wrote, it says that if you give an IP address (static) to a Mac that is on LocalTalk behind a box, you had better make sure that the address is within the range managed by the box, otherwise the box will ignore any traffic from that host. I never implied nor did I mean to imply that the box should let all traffic pass onto the LocalTalk segment from the Ethernet segment. But IP traffic that is not local to the LocalTalk segment should be sent on through to the Ethernet side. 3. I never stated that the people who created the gateways were stupid, I myself have great respect for them as I could not do their job (and besides, without them we would be in even worse shape). What I claimed the problem was, was only taking care of traffic within its own range of addresses. I fully understand the fact that the boxes of that caliber (no slight intended) would be swamped if 253 nodes tried to talk at the same time through it. Even the recommended limit of 60 nodes can swamp them. But limiting them so that they ignore addresses outside of their range is (in MY opinion) a poor design choice. As Pete pointed out in his response, the service Cayman gives is excellent! I have called them with problems and they are very helpful and exceptionally quick to return my calls. Can't say anything about Shiva as I have not had to call them (although Kinetics was good, not as good as Cayman, but at they did try :-). Besides, if I did not like the GatorBox, I wouldn't be ordering two more... Mike. > (Sorry for all the caps, but I am >trying to stress a point in stupidity on the part of Kinetics and Cayman.) So now that you found somewhere to grind your axe, what is the problem here. I certainly don't see why it is STUPID of bridges to do this!! Aside from being to spec, it might be quite nice to control which IP addresses your Macintosh's get and certainly is unacceptable to forward all IP traffic to the localtalk side. If the problem you are complaining about is that you need to specify a range and cannot use single addresses (i.e. configured from the Mac or the like), maybe you want to mention this to one of the companies in question. Cayman has been very helpful and the person I have been speaking to has been talking to the engineers about this as a down the road design change. Stupidity is a stupid charge. -- Mike Temkin mst@csun.edu Cal. State U. Northridge, School of Engineering and Computer Science Voice phone: (818) 885-3919