| Title: | DEChub/HUBwatch/PROBEwatch CONFERENCE |
| Notice: | Firmware -2, Doc -3, Power -4, HW kits -5, firm load -6&7 |
| Moderator: | NETCAD::COLELLA DT |
| Created: | Wed Nov 13 1991 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 4455 |
| Total number of notes: | 16761 |
We are configuring a large FDDI/Ethernet network for a "major airport"
in the Chicago area... We are competing against Cisco and have some
specific questions about the DECswitch 900EF in a Novell Netware
environment:
1. The support of Novell Netware 4.1. The preferred packet format is
the Netware 802.2 version. I have provided an excerpt out of the
recent Network Buyers Guide that shows 802.2 and 802.3 format support.
Does this include Novell? What is the setup at the client (on
ethernet) and the server (on FDDI) when Netware 802.2 format support
is required?
2. Future migration is planned away from the IPX protocol to TCP/IP.
I have yet to determine if the customer is on the Internet, I suspect
not. There are only three server location planned with an increase in
client population toward 1000 Netware clients. As this network will
be composed of translation bridges and is highly controlled, is there
any downside to this approach? We have discussed addressing for TCP.
This seems to be the proper selection of the subnet mask to
allow the proper number of clients and the extent of support by
Netware.
I need to wrap these issues up quickly as this is a fast track project
that is expected to fly through the approval process...
Thanks in advance for any/all responses... ITASCA::BERNDT DTN:446-2514
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2101.1 | NETCAD::ANIL | Wed Mar 15 1995 11:40 | 16 | ||
Using 802.2 format, you need configure nothing on the DECswitches to
make IPX work. It's only when using the 802.3 format, also referred to as
"Raw 802.3 IPX", that you need to flip a switch on all DECswitches
called the Raw IPX switch. Of the 3 Novell formats, it is the only
one that has caused problems for customers, and should be stayed away
from.
I'm having trouble understanding your other question. You mention a
move away from IPX to TCP/IP, then mention translational bridging, and
then ask whether this is the proper subnet mask. If the question is,
is it OK to use bridges with IP rather than routers, the answer is yes
as long as there aren't too many end stations. 1000 stations in multiple
subnets would probably require at least a couple routers to operate
stably.
Anil
| |||||