Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!sharkey!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!npd.novell.com!newsun!keith Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell Subject: Re: NW v3.11 and TCP/IP connectivity (Telnet et.al.)?? Message-ID: <1991Apr19.191800.5666@novell.com> From: keith@ca.excelan.com (Keith Brown) Date: 20 Apr 91 01:02:18 -0500 Sender: news@novell.com ( Lines: 51 The News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: ca Reply-To: keith@ca.excelan.com (Keith Brown) Organization: Novell, Inc. San Jose, California References: <1991Apr18.215705.27939@novell.com> <41441@cup.portal.com> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1991 19:18:00 GMT In article <41441@cup.portal.com> Jons@cup.portal.com (Jonathan S Spangler) writes: >do you know *where* that fork lift was headed? Do you distribute to the >big boys first? (Micro-D, Merisel, TechData)? > I believe yesterdays fork lift was headed for the residence of the biggest boy on the block. IBM :-) Todays fork lift is for the others. >>... The LAN WorkPlace also contains the "client piece" of the tunnel, >>allowing the workstation<->server IPX traffic to be encapsulated in >>UDP/IP datagrams. >> >When you say "client piece", are you refering to just to the mechanism that >allows both protocol stacks to be loaded simultaneously right? This is not >the same as the client piece that comes with PC-NFS that allows me to >"mount" a drive from an NFS server and see that drive in my native DOS (If >I understand this correctly.) Correct about the fact I'm not referring to an NFS client capability. Thinking about it, the term "client piece of the tunnel" is terrible! It implies the tunnel has a client end and a server end when actually it doesn't. "Workstation piece of the tunnel". Yes.... thats much better! The workstation piece of the tunnel (:-)) allows a DOS workstation to encapsulate it's normal IPX interaction with the server inside UDP/IP. Using NetWare v3.11 in conjunction with LAN WorkPlace it is possible to put together a NetWare LAN that is entirely IP protocols on the wire. In a local area context I doubt many people will want to tunnel IPX in IP from the workstation to the server. Multiple protocols on LANS are a fact of life and, in my opinion, a perfectly acceptable fact of life. However, in the wide area context, where the routing and congestion control issues are more complex, standardisation on a single protocol such as IP makes a great deal of sense and this is where I envisage our tunnel being applied. It will probably also be applied on large internetworked LANS where multiple protocols run on the subnetworks but a single protocol is used on the main backbone. Configurations like this are pretty commonplace too. The workstation piece of the IP tunnel is for the isolated guy who, for one reason or another, finds himself plugged into the uniprotocol portion of the internetwork. Sound reasonable? Keith - Keith Brown Phone: (408) 473 8308 Novell San Jose Development Centre Fax: (408) 433 0775 2180 Fortune Dr, San Jose, California 95131 Net: keith@novell.COM