Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!iies.ecn.purdue.edu!wards
From: wards@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Sherman Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: Farallon StarController restictions
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.130503.25698@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 11 Jan 91 13:05:03 GMT
References: <10299@pogo.WV.TEK.COM> <1991Jan10.193750.25098@phri.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@noose.ecn.purdue.edu (USENET news)
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 62

In article <1991Jan10.193750.25098@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
>andyd@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Andy Davidson) writes:
>> Farralon technical support says that they recommend and support only one
>> device (Mac, printer, whatever) per branch.  Given that each port is
>> electrically isolated from the others, this seems extremely conservative.
>
>	When building networks, being conservative may not be a bad idea.
>At any rate, I usually allow several devices per branch, as long as all the
>devices are right next to each other in the same room and can be connected
>with just a short piece of PhoneNet modular cable, and are in a strictly
>linear chain with a single terminator at the end.  I consider branches
>beyond the StarController's punchdown block to be strictly verbotten.  It
>seems to work.  Keep in mind, however, that if you start violating
>Farallon's recommendations, even though you may very well get away with it,
>you are living on borrowed time.  The most we have on a branch right now is
>a FastPath, a LaserWriter, and three macs.  One of these days, the FastPath
>is going to get taken off that branch and given an entire port all to
>itself, just to make it easier to troubleshoot network problems (i.e. I can
>turn off that one port without effecting anything else).
>--
>Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
>455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
>roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
>"Arcane?  Did you say arcane?  It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"

Andy & Roy, I missed the original article, so ..... I will ad
my 2 cents about the StarController Branches.

We installed LocalTalk in 1987 (using twisted pair coax and Apple's 
connector kits).  Our department acquired a StarController after our 
LocalTalk net became too long & un-reliable.  (We tried 2 Tops
Repeaters first, but it was a short term fix :-(  Our decision
to buy a StarController was aided by the existence of old "dumb" 
terminal port wiring in the walls.  We placed the Controller
next to the punch block and used the old ports to create 8 branches.
Some of the branches have only 1 "unit" on the branch.  All of
the old cabling was used in conjunction with the new
arrangement.  We had to buy 12 converters (going from RJ11 to
Apple's 3 pin LocalTalk) and the rest was 'plug & play'.  Our
most populated branch has 4 Macs, LaserWriterII, and a
Kennetics (Shive) FastPath.  Another branch has 5 Macs and a
LaserWriterII.

Baring janitors mops, clumsy feet, & sheer ignorance which
disconnect the LocalTalk pieces, the StarController has worked
flawlessly :-) (..YEA RAH something that has worked EXACTLY as
advertised ;-)

I agree with Roy in that the "net access box" (FastPath,
GatorBox, etc..) sould be the only device on one branch
because of the "importance" of it's services.  (Our arrangement 
didn't allow this :-( I also understand the 'conservative' 
approach, but "bang for the buck" doesnt allow you to be TOO 
conservative.

Just my 2 cents..
Sherman
--
+SNAIL: Sherman Ward / Freshman Engineering / Purdue University /   +
+       Rm 221 Engineering Admin. Bldg. / West Lafayette, IN  47907 +
+-------------------------+----------------+------------------------+
+ wards@pc.ecn.purdue.edu + (317) 494-3976 +  I believe in Murphy!  +