Xref: utzoo comp.sys.novell:1424 comp.dcom.lans:8006
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!acc.flint.umich.edu!jal
From: jal@acc.flint.umich.edu (John Lauro)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell,comp.dcom.lans,amd.sys.pc
Subject: Re: Netware 386 NFS capabilities
Message-ID: <1991May7.232850.7748@engin.umich.edu>
Date: 7 May 91 23:28:50 GMT
References: <1991May7.170934.18198@amd.com>
Sender: news@engin.umich.edu (CAEN Netnews)
Organization: University of Michigan - Flint
Lines: 25

In article <1991May7.170934.18198@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>The best system would seem to be to put two network interfaces in our
>Novell fileserver and let it bridge, route, and gateway services
>between our private IPX network and the corporate TCP-IP backbone.

NW 386 will not gateway TCP/IP services.  However, it is capable of acting as a router.

>What's missing, as I understand the capabilities of Netware 386, is the
>ability for the Novell fileserver to act as an NFS *client* and mount a
>filesystem from a Unix host. There are many reasons why this is nice,
>including the fact that our Unix hosts have a nice backup system in
>place. Since we want the file server to isolate our private IPX network
>from the corporate backbone anyway, this wouldn't result in a wasteful
>doubling of filesystem traffic.

Will not work that way.  NW 386 will only act as a server so that other machines can mount
it.

>How about it, Novell, would you consider putting this in?

What you can do, is bind both IPX and TCP/IP to one board, and then bind just TCP/IP
to the other.  For telnet and ftp use one of the many commercial or freeware packages
(including NCSA telnet, CUTCP, Lan Workplace for DOS/Windows (from Novell), FTP's, etc...)
I stay away from NFS, but that would work too.  (Using any existing NFS software you
are currently using.  Don't know if you can run NFS and Novell at the same time or not.)