Xref: utzoo comp.sys.novell:1695 comp.dcom.lans:8228 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!tmc.edu!sob From: sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell,comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Netware 386 NFS capabilities Message-ID: <5744@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> Date: 29 May 91 02:50:25 GMT References: <42116@cup.portal.com> <1991May8.184807.29998@dsuvax.uucp> <1991May10.142129.18462@jhereg.osa.com> Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu Followup-To: comp.sys.novell Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX Lines: 25 Nntp-Posting-Host: tmc.edu In article <1991May10.142129.18462@jhereg.osa.com> andrew@jhereg.osa.com (Andrew C. Esh) writes: >Back in the original message there was a comment about the Unix bigots who >won't let IPX run on the backbone. The idea of networking is to try to get >different machines connected to one another. My question is: Why are these >people in charge of the net? They obviously do not have the right attitude. I have seen many, many problems with multiprotocol networks. If you have limited resources and can only do one protocol well because of the limited resources, what do you do? I say support TCP/IP. That will allow a much larger group of different machines to connect than anything else. Since those machines may or may not run Unix, I doubt any one can call the Unix bigotry. It may be TCP/IP bigotry, but that's a different than Unix bigotry. [Many people have a hard time seperating Unix and TCP/IP, but they really are not the same thing.:-)] With the availablity of tunneling on NW/386, why run IPX on the backbone anyway? Appletalk has been doing well for a long time using tunneling. Even DECnet can be encapusulated. This tells me that the Backbone operations folks and deal with TCP/IP connectivitity and those who need other protocols can just tunnel through. -- Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking Olan uucp: rutgers!bcm!sob and Systems Support Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine