| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 4119.1 | | UTRTSC::SWEEP | I want a lolly... | Wed Jan 22 1997 09:18 | 12 |
| 4119.2 | I'm trying to say this. | GRANPA::BARABIA | | Wed Jan 22 1997 10:00 | 10 |
| 4119.3 | | UTRTSC::SWEEP | I want a lolly... | Thu Jan 23 1997 04:39 | 23 |
| 4119.4 | | VMSNET::S_VORE | Smile - Mickey's Watching! | Mon Jan 27 1997 10:59 | 12 |
| > have an article that appeared in the January issue of "PATHWORKS
> Manager" written by someone named Scott Barielle that discusses the
...
> this customer has an article that appeared in a PATHWORKS publication
> that seems to indicate otherwise.
Please note that Scott, while a good guy, is not part of the PATHWORKS
engineering nor support teams and that "PATHWORKS Manager" is not a
Digital publication.
|
| 4119.5 | | GRANPA::BARABIA | | Tue Jan 28 1997 08:41 | 20 |
| re.4
Although I can't personaly verify Scott is a "good guy" I'm aware he's
not part of the PATHWORKS engineering group and that the "PATHWORKS
Manager" publication is not an official Digital pub.
That said, this customer although aware of these things, still gets
the publicaion and reads the articles and stuck in my face the article
Scott wrote concerning the use of the PATHWORKS Alias with the TCP/IP
stack included with Windows95 and he has concerns and tasked me with
verifying the accuracy of the article.
I put a call into the CSC who assured me the problem described was
addressed with PW V5.0D ECO3. Is this accurate? Can I expect that when
we enable PATHWORKS with TCP/IP that our Win95 Clients will be able to
use the PATHWORKS Alias to access Shares and the Servers?
Thansk for the input.
Barry A
|
| 4119.6 | | VMSNET::S_VORE | Smile - Mickey's Watching! | Tue Jan 28 1997 08:48 | 9 |
| >...customer...gets the publication...stuck in my face...
do they also check the corner 7-11, insist that Elvis should be there, and
fight with the counter-boy based on the tabloids? :-)
*sigh*
we now return you to your regularly scheduled Note.
|
| 4119.7 | | VMSNET::P_NUNEZ | | Tue Jan 28 1997 09:21 | 23 |
| Barry,
First, did you see note 4076 - it looks like MS has just ack'd that a
problem exists with Win95 and WinNT TCP/IP when WINS is enabled.
>He also suggests 3 possible
>solutions to the problem. One being a different TCP/IP stack, use a
>"fix" available for Digital TCP/IP services for VMS and the 3rd being
>the most feasible which is to unbind TCP/IP from the Win95 client
>service. I pretty much understand the issue and fixes except for one.
As for the a "fix" for UCX and v5.0D ECO3, I think what they're
referring to is using the UCX 4.x metric server which, if given the
same name as the PATHWORKS alias, can be accessed by clients using
DNS/DNR. Thus you avoid the NETBIOS findname broadcast. It requires
v5.0D ECO3 because prior to eco3 the alias name was known to only one
node in the cluster at a time. If the DNS returned an address of a
cluster member that wasn't the one listening at the time, the client
would not connect. With v5.0d ECO3 the name is known to all cluster
members running pathworks (while only one will respond to findname
broadcast requests).
Paul
|
| 4119.8 | Is the fix part of OpenVMS Lan Manager Ver. | ACISS2::BRANSTEIN | Never mess with another man's rhubarb | Tue Jan 28 1997 09:40 | 7 |
| re .7
I have reading all these notes regarding WINS, WIN95 Clients and
Pathworks V5 Servers. Is this "fix" only for UCX or does this apply to
OpenVMS LAN Manager Version V5.0D ec03 as well?
Gary
|
| 4119.9 | Does fix work with other TCP stacks? | ACISS2::BRANSTEIN | Never mess with another man's rhubarb | Tue Jan 28 1997 10:01 | 10 |
| re -.8
Ooops,
Let me rephrase the question. Will the patch work with other TCP
stacks, ie. TCPWARE?
Regards,
Gary
|
| 4119.10 | | GRANPA::BARABIA | | Tue Jan 28 1997 11:36 | 20 |
|
re.6 - Yea, thats pretty much the way these guys work here!!
Honestly they almost go out of there way to give us grief and
challenge us on the stability/usability/functionality of our products.
Drives me nuts. One thing though, they are as equally eager to harass
Microsoft. Refering back to this article Scott wrote, he indicates MS
did not implement RFC 1001/1002 in the IP stack, so he asking
Microsoft how come!!
re.7 - Paul, yea I've seen some of the info regarding Win95 and WINS
and TCP/IP. One thing though, is that we ARE NOT using WINS here at all
as of yet, just Win95 Clients with TCP/IP and PATHWORKS Servers using
TGV Multinet, well actually, Multinet has been disabled for sometime
now due to problems with TGV. We are now close to getting Multinet
fixed and IP re-enabled on the servers for PATHWORKS access. I need to
determine if when we do that, we'll not have problems with our TCP/IP
clients. Thanks for the repsonses.
Barry
|