GroupStudy.com GroupStudy.com - A virtual community of network engineers
 Home  BookStore  StudyNotes  Links  Archives  StudyRooms  HelpWanted  Discounts  Login
Re: ways to seperate IP and IPX traffic? [7:42855] posted 04/30/2002
[Chronological Index] [Thread Index] [Top] [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Sounds like your novell admins just use compaq smart start and leave things
at defaults.  (novell WILL destroy a network if not configured properly) 
The tree is constantly updated. (putting your novell network on it's own l3
net also helps out a lot!  And across WAN links?  Forget it!  If you have
servers at remote sites, updates to the tree should be done at off peak
times. (but don't think MS and active directory is going to fix any
problems.  It's worse across WAN links than novell!  constantly pushing and
pulling garbage!  And let's not even go there with SMS...  Ever take a trace
of a poorly configured sms install? woowee... I see an average of a 2%
traffic increase when migrating to active directory over a standard nt
domain. (and 2% of 100mb is nothing and on a lan is not bad at all....but
take that same percentage and bounce it across your wan links and you start
to bog down!)

(and I don't push novell or microsoft...if I push anything, it's linux/unix
:) )
I just don't believe there is one best answer... all the nos's have their
flaws and their strong points.

-Patrick

long live netbeui

>>> "Michael L. Williams"  04/29/02 11:17PM >>>
"Priscilla Oppenheimer"  wrote in message
news:200204300246.WAA17407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> AppleTalk traffic doesn't bother other people. AppleTalk devices don't
> broadcast; they multicast, and they don't do that very often. AppleTalk
> routers and servers don't ever broadcast (or multicast) service
> announcements like they do in an IPX environment. And the Chooser doesn't
> broadcast either. A Mac sends a unicast packet to a router when the user
> pulls up the Chooser. The router figures out which networks are in the
zone
> and forwards the unicast. The recipient routers then multicast. And, no,
> this doesn't repeat forever at short intervals. Since Mac OX 7.0 (1989)
the
> Mac has backed off on the unicasts it sends to start the process.

Okay...at the risk of facing the wrath of Priscilla, here goes. =)

Just off the top of my head, why would multicasting be any better than
broadcasting.... in fact, wouldn't that be worst as broadcasts (L2 or L3)
are stopped at the router whereas multicast could traverse your entire
network, even through routers...?

You gotta give me this tho:  AppleTalk picks a layer three address at
random, then checks to see if it's in use and repeats until it finds one it
can use..... How lame is that?.... I was digging thru my CCNA notes from 2+
years ago and read a comment I wrote saying (about it choosing an L3 addr at
random) "imagine if that were used on the internet... it could take
days/weeks to get an IP address".. =)

> You knew you would push one of my buttons, didn't you? ;-)
>
> As far as IPX traffic, it's not really that bad either, but the SAP
> broadcasts can get excessive. There are many ways to keep them contained,
> if that's what the poster had in mind. I think he better give us more info
> on what he's trying to accomplish.

I have to disagree here....... IPX traffic is horrible (admittedly due to
Novell, not as a protocol itself per se..... also as you pointed out, in all
fairness, a large %-age is SAP broadcasts and admittedly, the people whom I
inherited the network from didn't do squat to limit any kind of SAP
traffic).....   If you pick a random switchport out of the 28000+
switchports on our network and do a sniffer capture, you'll find probably
75% of it is IPX related... and we use IP for probably 90% of our apps (and
web/internet access).....  that's not acceptable..... we cannot wait to get
rid of IPX altogether (which will happen when our migration from Netware to
2000 is complete).....   I'm not a Microsoft zombie, by any means, and I
won't even claim that Win2K and Active Directory is any better than Novell
NDS, but getting rid of IPX is a godsend no matter if it means running
Microslop Win2K.... that's how much we hate dealing with IPX =)

> Hopefully he didn't just buy into the BS that "IPX is chatty" (the same BS
> that you hear about AppleTalk. ;-) You want chatty, watch a Windows
machine
> running NetBIOS and SMB boot!

Sounds like sour grapes.  LOL  (just kidding =)

Hey.... I've seen your website with you @ your I-SCHMAC laptop.... so it
doesn't surprise me to see you defending AppleSquawk...  =)

Mike W.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Confidentiality Disclaimer   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and
/or proprietary information in the possession of WellStar Health System,
Inc. ("WellStar") and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom
addressed.  This email may contain information that is held to be
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any unauthorized access, dissemination, distribution or
copying of any information from this email is strictly prohibited, and may
subject you to criminal and/or civil liability. If you have received this
email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete this
email and its attachments from your computer. Thank you.

================================================================




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42888&t=42855
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx