Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!cfa!ward From: ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Bridge/Excelan VMS/TCP-IP problem Message-ID: <578@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> Date: Thu, 11-Jun-87 14:28:21 EDT Article-I.D.: cfa.578 Posted: Thu Jun 11 14:28:21 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 10:30:49 EDT Distribution: na Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics Lines: 74 Keywords: Bridge, Excelan, VMS, TCP-IP, Telnet Help needed from TCP/IP, Telnet protocol experts!!!!!!!! I have Bridge terminal servers talking to DEC MicroVAXes running VMS with Excelan TCP/IP protocol/Ethernet interface boards. Here is my most serious problem: In order to run CAD/CAE graphics and other applications, the Telnet session must be in binary mode. The Excelan board defaults to 7-bit(ASCII) mode. The Excelan board is designed to expect the remote client to request binary mode through some Telnet command/request mechanism. The Bridge Terminal Servers can easily be tailored by a user to operate in binary mode, but have no user or system method to be made to request binary mode on the part of a host. This means there is no way for the Excelan board to operate in binary mode when a Bridge terminal server is used to interface the terminal or other remote client. All that is needed is for the Excelan board to provide some host-based method for configuring binary mode, or the Bridge terminal server must implement some method for requesting binary mode from the host. NOW FOR THE REAL PROBLEM: Bridge says that they used to implement client request for host binary mode, but it caused havoc with SUN workstations, so they took out the command/request mechanism for host binary mode. Bridge further stated that the protocol specs are somewhat ambiguous on whether the client or host is responsible for requesting or implementing methods to enter binary mode, but at this point they feel the host is burdened with this function, though they admit they felt the opposite was true at an earlier point in time. Bridge sympathizes with my problem, but declines to do anything to fix it since their position is that they are conforming to the TCP/IP/Telnet specs. Excelan takes the same position, saying that per the specs it is clear that the Bridge terminal servers must issue the appropriate request for host binary mode, and their board will respond properly to the request. Now it is clear that one of these two products is broken, but which one??? Bridge and Excelan sympathize, but in essence are saying "nothing wrong with us or our stuff, go away kid, don't bother me." What is disturbing is that neither outfit is interested in researching and resolving the problem. I would think that both companies would be interested in helping clarify the situation, even perhaps indulging in a three way conversation, but this interest was not shown. I do not have RPC's or specs of any kind. What I ask is that you network protocol wizards out there discuss this issue and let's see if their is a concensus as to whether Bridge or Excelan has a broken product in this case. If the specs turn out to be truly ambiguous, can we initiate a clarification to eliminate the confusion? Excelan, Bridge, are you listening? I would appreciate a higher level of concern and support whether you think your product is broken or not. This problem will cause malfunctions with most, if not all graphics terminals connected to Bridge terminal servers talking to the Excelan TCP/IP board. Are there other TCP/IP protocol boards out there that assume that the terminal server or other client must request binary mode? If so, then using the Bridge terminal server is not wise since it won't request the binary mode. If the host must provide a method for entering binary mode, then clearly the Excelan product is broken and these problems could be encountered using the Excelan board with any terminal server or other client. This should concern all present and potential customers for these two product lines. Bridge and Excelan, if you are listening, replies to myself or Roger Hauck should be e-mailed to me at: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!ward or ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (ARPA) This topic should be of broad interest and concern, so replies to the net are also appropriate, in my view. Steven Ward, Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!ward