Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!npd.novell.com!newsun!brianb From: brianb@kinetics.com (Brian Bulkowski) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: Netware internal network number? Summary: Why internal network numbers? Let me count the reasons... Keywords: Novell 3.##, appletalk Message-ID: <1991May20.180529.25926@novell.com> Date: 20 May 91 18:05:29 GMT References: Sender: brianb@wc.novell.com (Brian Bulkowski) Reply-To: brianb@wc.novell.com (Brian Bulkowski) Followup-To: comp.protocols.appletalk Organization: Novell Corp., Walnut Creek, CA. Lines: 68 Nntp-Posting-Host: plasma Hi, Perhaps I can do two things: explain what our thoughs were on having an internal network, and tell you what we are doing about it. I know about the AppleTalk side, and caught the note on the AppleTalk side, thus will only speak about NetWare 3.0 for AppleTalk. The decision to have an internal network was born out of lack of time, and thoughtfulness. If a server has several cards and is running with routing, then there are several nodes involved. There will be one node per media that the router is attached to. There can also be a seperate node for the protocol stack (that thing that printing and files services come from). Given the code we started with, our first release needed to have a node for the protocol stack. If this node was on any of the networks that the router talked to (a REAL network), then partitioning of the net could give unwanted results. For example, if we have two interfaces, with net numbers 1 and 2 on the cable. The protocol stack is on net #1. Suddenly, the cable on the #1 side becomes unplugged. There is a duplicate route between net 1 and net 2. If the router in the box advertises a route to net 1, it could get packets it can't deliver. If the router does not advertise, it will never get packets it could deliver to the stack. Thus, the stack will never get packets, and will drop all connections, even though there is a perfectly good connection between the stack and the outside world. However, if the stack is on an internal network, it will be independant from any physical media, thus be able to communicate even though connections go up and down around it. Even if those connections involve changing configurations: adding and deleting cards, phases, what have you. Thus we thought it was a good feature. Around here we have lots of NetWare for Mac servers. What we do for internal network numbers is use the 4 digit extensions of our phone numbers, and prepend a 3 or 4. I don't see a real problem with running out of net numbers, because the only reason for using a network range is because you can't fit all your nodes (256) on one network number. Thus, a 500 node network would need a cable range of 2. Internal nets, needing only 2 nodes (one for the router, one for the stack) are non-extended and only need a single number. Thus, you could easily accomodate 1000 servers (one net a piece) and the worst case you could have, 1 net per node, would leave you enough room for 63,000 machines. I don't believe there is a single appletalk internet so large, so it isn't a problem yet, and if you are scrounging for the last 1000 net numbers you have a bigger problem, AppleTalk scalability, which is outside of the scope of this humble engineer. I don't understand the argument of 255 servers and 255 media types. I think it had to do with the way you assigned network numbers, thus it seems you need a better way. We do recognise the need of "no internal networks". Thus, in a future release, we are planning on a configuration with no router which will also have no internal net. Thus, one card, one server, no router, no extra routing traffic, no configuration problems. If anyone thinks that there is a good reason to have the router and no internal net, please speak up. Be prepared to counter the argument in paragraph 2. Thanks for raising this question, and if this is the worst problem you have with NetWare for Mac 3.0, I think I'm happy :-). Cheers, brianb In article hobson@madness.rutgers.edu (Kevin Hobson) writes: > > Previously, when our group in Computer Services install 3.10, >we found out that Novell change the rules on us with Novell network >numbers. Novell requires an internal network number that has nothing >to do with the particular novell network number involved (see picture >below). This internal network number is advertised when I do a "show >novell servers" on a cisco router running novell routing. I "assumed" .....