| Title: | TeamLinks for Windows |
| Notice: | Kit and ECO locations: See replies to note 8. o note 8. |
| Moderator: | ORION::chayna.zko.dec.com::tamara::eppes AN |
| Created: | Mon Aug 28 1995 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 2238 |
| Total number of notes: | 9650 |
Sequence of events and communication with customer...
Customer has problem with intermittent connections being lost
whether they be DECnet or IP.
Customer has TeamLinks 2.1-5 or TeamLinks 2.5
Customer has MailWorks 1.3a-3
Ucx 4.0
VMS 6.2 on ALPHA 2100
License on Alpha Units 100
Customer says they have been running TEamLinks for a number of
years and now they are experiencing a number of spontaneous
disconnects.
Does not matter whether DECnet or TCP/IP (using 32bit stack in
WFW3.11)
Customer is going to try to get cfcdebug.log. Does not matter if on
same router (one PC may have prob, one may not). Says hardware is all
similar (DEC ethernet cards).
After looking deeper into the problem found that there were some
systems with duplicate decnet addresses on the PC's. The PC's have
dual stacks. Even on the "IP" systems it appears that the duplication
in DECnet addresses caused the problem. Once the duplication was
addressed - no more problem.
I can understand the DECnet systems being affected but how does this
duplication of DECnet addres affect a user who is connection to TeamLinks
via TCP/IP?
Any takers?
Debbie Giannetti
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980.1 | Duplicate IP addresses too? | MANANA::FLANAGAN | Thu Mar 06 1997 15:35 | 6 | |
Debbie,
Unless they had duplicate IP addresses I don't see how IP users
would be affected either.
/ Peter
| |||||
| 1980.2 | Does this make any sense at all? | AIMTEC::GIANNETTI_D | Mon Mar 17 1997 14:42 | 11 | |
I have another customer who is getting the xs errors and the
sub or function not defined error. The reason I am adding this
reply here is that she found out that the affected Windows 95 systems
that were giving these errors also had dual stacks loaded and they
turned out to all have duplicate decnet addresses (even though they
were using IP for TeamLinks and for access to the server) once they
addressed the duplicate decnet addresses all was well.
What could be going on here?
Debbie Giannetti
| |||||
| 1980.3 | A suggestion | WOTVAX::16.194.208.3::warder.reo.dec.com::sharkeya | Who am I now ? | Tue Mar 18 1997 04:48 | 5 |
I bet its the ethernet address being changed to an AA-00... number. That would affect all transports. Alan | |||||
| 1980.4 | Station address or ethernet address? | AIMTEC::GIANNETTI_D | Mon Mar 24 1997 13:28 | 12 | |
Alan,
Do you mean that the "station" address would be duplicated as well?
How would this cause the sub or function not defined or the spontaneous
disconnects?
Enlighten me.
Debbie Giannetti
| |||||
| 1980.5 | Could it be a wildcard msg to all stacks? | MANANA::FLANAGAN | Tue Apr 15 1997 17:41 | 23 | |
Debbie,
I suspect this is a router question -- ethernet level protocol is
well below the winsock level I'm used to. You probably should ask
someone in the pathworks group about this. I can only speculate.
I *guess* that the machine is still announcing itself as being
alive and at the given address even if the DECnet transport isn't
being used. If the transport is installed it is probably occassionally
broadcasting its address. When the router notices two machines
with different ethernet addresses claiming to be the same it
probably sends a message to one or both saying "you have a twin out
there". Perhaps the message is being received by all the transports
on the machine because it is a wildcard message and the IP stack
receives it and shuts down?
If you find the real answer I'd be happy to be corrected and
enlighted.
/ Peter
| |||||