Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!lid
From: lid@cernvax.UUCP (lid)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: SR9.5.1 - Are we happy???
Message-ID: <497@cernvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Jul-87 18:52:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: cernvax.497
Posted: Wed Jul  1 18:52:45 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Jul-87 05:09:50 EDT
References: <401@gamma.UUCP>
Reply-To: lid@cernvax.UUCP (Achille Petrilli)
Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Lines: 40

In article <401@gamma.UUCP> wb@gamma.UUCP writes:
>SR9.5.1 was, according to some at Apollo, the answer to all
>of our ills; the latest and greatest.  Well, it was late.
>I remember being told at a meeting held over a year ago in
>Chelmsford that SR9.5 would soon be here.  Is it great?
>I don't think so.  Not only haven't they fixed any of the
>TCP/IP routing problems which I reported to them about a
>year ago, I do not see any of the performance improvements
> ...

We have received 9.5.1 some times ago but not yet installed it
because of problems due to recompilation of all programs etc.
I was hoping that TCP/IP problems were gone in 9.5.1 but you
say they are still there.
We have 34 nodes running on 2 bridged rings (G700 bridge, kind of T1)
and the TCP gateways are on only one of the 2 rings. The nodes on
the ring without gateways still have problems in reaching anything
on the Ethernet, what's funny is that sometime they work and sometime
they don't, without any apparent reason.

We run TCP_server on all nodes as described in the TCP manual with
all the RIP_server etc., the tcpstat -g command just says what it is
supposed to say etc. but

	ftp something_on_ether

sometimes gets connected and other times says "destination not responding".
All tcp_server around seem to be fine. I have given up in trying to solve
the problem and was waiting for 9.5, but may be better to wait for 9.6
(I was told Sept/Oct).

Has anyone this kind of problems with bridged rings ? or similar problems
that could be related to this one ?
Any solution, workaround ?

By the way, is someone out there running multiple gateways with some sort
of fallback, when the first gateway (in the host table) goes down the 2nd
gets used and so on ? If yes, how did you do that ?

	Achille Petrilli