Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:2148 comp.periphs:1421 comp.terminals:1021 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rice!bcm!watson!sob From: sob@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.periphs,comp.terminals Subject: Re: Terminal Servers? (problems with Bridge) Message-ID: <1360@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> Date: 29 Dec 88 01:46:16 GMT Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu Reply-To: sob@watson.UUCP (Stan Barber) Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX Lines: 33 After some private mail on this issue, I am rereplying: ]In article <109@oregon.uoregon.edu> jqj@oregon.uoregon.edu (J Q Johnson) writes: ]>It should be noted that Bridge/3Com terminal servers can boot themselves ]>over the network only from a special-purpose boot node (NCS) running XNS ]>(even if you are using a TCP/IP or OSI version of the Bridge t.s.). ]This is incorrect. The NCS does NOT run XNS. I have an NCS/AT that runs ]TCP/IP just fine, thank you. The NCS/AT runs TCP/IP most of the time. XNS is used to boot only. ]>Furthermore, the boot server must be on the SAME XNS NETWORK, normally ]>the same Ethernet, as the terminal server. ]The must be on the same ETHERNET, not the same XNS network. If you have ]a large network that uses bridges or bridging routers, it all works. XNS is defined but not supported consistantly by all vendors. 3com XNS and Bridge XNS and Xerox XNS do not interoperate well. It is the case that Proteon's and cisco's XNS support may not support all these different forms of the protocol. (I know that Proteon only claims to support the XNS used by Novell.) So, we are both probably correct. >This is a very substantial restriction on the Bridge servers in a typical >complex internet. ]I agree that the 3Com/Bridge boot system is not the best, but let's try to ]argue from accurate information. Anyone want to contribute to the accurate information pool, please do. Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Baylor College of Medicine Olan uucp: {rice,killer,hoptoad}!academ!sob Barber Opinions expressed are only mine.