Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!pasteur!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!edmoy
From: edmoy@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;YF37)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Why Do I need Kinetics Box?(Unix<>Mac)
Message-ID: <6994@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 16 Feb 88 02:11:02 GMT
References: <11540136@hpsmtc1.HP.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: edmoy@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP ()
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 33

In article <11540136@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes:
>Ok you LocalTalk/Ethertalk/Ethernet gurus: A Question...
>
>Now that there are Ethernet cards for the SE and the II why is a Kinetics Box
>(or like boxes) necessary? Will there be a version of AUFS/CAP stuff that does
>not require a box between my Mac II w/EtherTalk and my Hp Unix box on the
>ethernet? If not, WHY NOT?

Currently, a K-Box is required because it has to run the KIP code, that takes
AppleTalk packets on the LocalTalk network destined for ethernet, and encap-
sulates then into UDP packets.  The EtherTalk cards just send AppleTalk
packets on the ethernet, which makes them incompatible (or at least ignored)
by the rest of the TCP world, including the CAP/AUFS software.  Hopefully,
someone (soon) will write a driver for the EtherTalk card that will encapsulate
packets just like the KIP code.

>And just where might NFS fit into this scheme? I know TOPS is working on 
>incorporating this into TOPS to some degree. However, the cost has to be 
>reasonable, as I am the only Mac II user in my lab, and we are not about to 
>spend big bucks for just one user.
>

We are a test site for a version of MacNFS from Univ. of Michigan, I believe.
I don't think we've received it yet, but when we do, I post as much info
about it as I can, depending on non-disclosure agreements, etc.

Edward Moy
Workstation Software Support Group
University of California
Berkeley, CA  94720

edmoy@violet.Berkeley.EDU
ucbvax!violet!edmoy