Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!cica!will
From: will@cica.indiana.edu (William Sadler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
Subject: Re: Econfig or not Econfig, That is the Question.
Message-ID: <1991Mar27.141604.7140@cica.indiana.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 91 14:16:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: cica.1991Mar27.141604.7140
References: <1991Mar27.141423.25863@qut.edu.au>
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 29

In <1991Mar27.141423.25863@qut.edu.au> lynam@qut.edu.au writes:

>       I was wondering if there is any real reason to change to the 8137 type
>of packets on a fileserver? I don't need too, to use NSCA Telnet,
>because the -n option on packet drivers, lets me see ordinary fileservers.

We used to require 8137 on our campus network, but that was because the
routers (Cisco) in each building were only capable of bridging IPX.  A ROM
upgrade now allows routing of IPX so that 802.3 packets are transferred
to 8137 on the backbone and then transferred back to 802.3 if another
router wants to see them (unless, of course, it is using 8137). So, as far as I
know, the answer to your question is that it doesn't make a difference.

>       Someone told me that if an ordinary Novell server is attached to a
>heavily used backbone with heaps of different types of protocols, that the
>server can mistake certain types of packets and as a result can hang.
>Is this true?  All I really want is to know, is if the above info is true.

I haven't heard that, though I have heard that certain devices that look
for 802.3 packets sometimes take longer to connect on 8137 networks.
Packet timeouts may be higher as well due to the increased traffic.

Will

-- 
***************************************************************************
*   _______________\|/_      Will Sadler     will@cica.indiana.edu        * 
*   Laser 44888    /|\                       sadler@iubacs.bitnet         *     
***************************************************************************