| 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 |
Hi all specialists in Novell networks! May I have a question that could sound naive but I need an answer to properly handle some customer's question... The point is related to DECswitch 900EF, and the way how the translation between Ethernet and FDDI frames is done. And the particular questions that a customer raised are: - What happens in a network in which there are several Novell encapsulations used on the Ethernet sides? - Considering that the Raw-Ethernet is switched on the per-box basis, how DECswitch 900EF handles a situation in which more than one encapsulation is used on its Ethernets? Can anyone who knows these issues by heart spend few minutes explaining how are the translating issues solved in the DECswitch (and probably generally)? I'd appreciate all responses! Thanks a lot in advance Petr Pavlu.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2761.1 | NETCAD::B_CRONIN | Fri Sep 15 1995 11:38 | 19 | ||
The answer is that you can't have multiple hacks to make netware
work. You pretty much have to choose one vendor and stay with that
vendor unless you have the time to study this on a vendor by
vendor basis. It is possible, for example, to put all the station
running RAW802.3 behind one bridge, and all the stations running
Ethernet V2 behind a different bridge, as long as the format on the
FDDI is the same. That way the bridge converts for the FDDI frame to
the locally preferred protocol.
Customers can solve the generic problem by converting their end nodes
to use Ethernet frame formats, or 802.2/802.3 formats everywhere. Yes,
this is painful for them, and in some cases hardware is not upgradeable,
but its the only way to ensure multivendor interoperability.
Please remember that this is Novell's mistake, not ours. We did our
best to make something that was usable, not solve the larger problem
of how to make a standard implementation. In fairness to Novell,
they no longer recommend that people use RAW802.3
| |||||
| 2761.2 | Thanks, I see the point. | DECPRG::PAVLUP | Mon Sep 18 1995 02:47 | 9 | |
Thanks for comments! I also found an interesting overview of
implementation in 1511.7 which shows what you say on particular
encapsulation types.
I think I have enough information for now.
Thanks and regards.
Petr.
| |||||
| 2761.3 | I'm sorry - one more thing to clarify... | DECPRG::PAVLUP | Mon Sep 18 1995 03:19 | 18 | |
Now when talking with the customer, one more point has occured to me
which I don't see how it is done.
You mentioned in .1 "locally preferred" protocol. If we forget for a
while the broken Novell "Raw 802.3", how generally the switch 900EF
solves the problem of potentially various Ethernet protocols on the
Ethernet (but in fact also on the FDDI) side? I mean if there are three
stations running Ethernet II, 802.2 SAP, and 802.2 SNAP, how does the
switch ensure each station understands its protocol and gets the right
data?
Is there a multiple transmission? Or a kind of table?
Thanks for clarifying this for me.
Regards Petr.
| |||||
| 2761.4 | Eth-FDDI Table in 2567.1 | SNOFS1::KHOOJEANNIE | Humpty Dumpty was pushed | Fri Sep 29 1995 00:39 | 2 |
Petr, there is a DECswitch table in Note 2567.1.
| |||||