
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOV-COMM.DOC -- 19961107 -- Email thread on Netware & Serial Communication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Feel free to add or edit this document and then email
	it back to faq@jelyon.com




Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 18:53:47 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD%USU.BITNET@SUVM.SYR.EDU>
Subject: SLIP, LWP/DOS, Kermit

	I've been working on aspects of serial comms to support our campus
when it goes to a big new modem pool later this spring, and one part of
that is providing SLIP and PPP support from afar.

	We are purchasing Telebit Netblazers for the campus, and I have
arranged MS-DOS Kermit (the next release) to dynamically acquire an IP
number from Telebit's PPP ODI driver. With that one can run IP and IPX at
the same time (at serial speeds however). MSK will pickup the IP number
from the Kermit area in NET.CFG where the Telebit PPP module will write it.
Similarly, MSK knows it can use Bootp over SLIP to a cisco Telnet server.

	Now to the current story: SLIP. I have added IP packet fragment
reassembly to the next edition of MSK, and I have noticed two things which
might interest NW system managers.

	1. Many hosts can fragment packets coming in from the Ethernet
(or Token Ring, etc) and being routed over the SLIP wires. SLIP has a max
frame size of 1006 bytes, versus 1500 for Ethernet. Fragmenting such routed
IP datagrams is the way things should work. But, some of those hosts get
rattled when several Ethernet packets arrive in quick succession, and they
relay out over SLIP the first packet (as two or more fragments) but the
following queued ones come out only as the last fragment of each. That means
pieces are missing on the PC side, and in turn that means timeouts at even
serial port sluggish rates. Well, dropped packets happen and both ends should
carry on regardless (with pauses as much as many seconds).

	If your PC TCP/IP software can reassemble fragments then well and
good. If not then one must decrease the local Maxmimum Segment Size for
TCP to a value which avoids fragmentation. Over long distances the nominal
safe size is 534 bytes (for a 576 IP datagram). If you are running v3.2
of TGV's Multinet on your VAX, as I am, then the max safe size is around
256 bytes for SLIP, and no larger.

	Some terminal servers are noted for fragmenting down to ~80 bytes.

	2. Lan WorkPlace/DOS v4.1 with latest patches. This tries to
reassemble IP fragments, but in the process of doing that and faced with
these stray tag ends (described above) it gets its buffer math messed up
and dumps a bunch of binary gibberish on the screen in place of the lost
fragments. So beware. In addition, LWP does not follow the normal rule of
thumb of using a MSS of =< 534 bytes for connections going through a router,
at least on the SLIP links I've tried, and thus fragmentation becomes a
stronger possibility. I used the LWP/DOS SLIP_PPP ODI driver. If you do
IPX tunneling over a SLIP link then the fragmentation problem may affect
that too.

	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 12:47:31 -0400
From: Eric Harold <eric@NOVELL1.EGHA.COM>
Subject: Re: Kermit

Kermit info is located at "http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 10:51:19 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: 3C509 cards not for servers?

>>	For what's it's worth dept. Over a year ago I went through the
>>characteristics of "parallel processing" style 3C boards with a nice technical
>>lady from 3Com. What we've said on the list is very true and not denied by
>>3Com. SMC tries a similar game with a similar sales name, and should receive
>>equal treatment.
>>	The PC arena is one of lowest price/most skillful hyperbole wins,
>>not one of technical excellence. System managers following the herd in this
>>manner often have technical problems. In some cases (green screens) it's
>>move with the herd or be trampled.
>>	Joe D.
>
>Joe, would you care to give us a "Top 5" ISA NIC for NetWare Servers list?
----------
	I don't think my valuations would be worth much, compared to say
PC Magazine tests, since I haven't run scientific tests that way. My first
choice for "always works well" is the venerable NE-2000 and decent clones.
One major reason for all the clones is the board does work well, and it's
cheap to make. SMC makes good boards (the classical Western Digital designs)
too, with shared memory for a tad better speed than the port i/o of NE-2000's.
DEC's Ethernet boards seem rather nice this time around (not the DEPCA stuff).

	For servers I have gone to EISA bus where ever possible, and into
those I put either NE-3200 bus masters and/or NE-2000's, depending on the
expected traffic. The latter are often in clone form to get more choices of
IRQ and port number. The former can totally crush the latter when moving files,
so we really do need to evaluate the traffic situation.

	No, I have not a clue about decent PCI boards. I watch comments from
other folks too. I don't have a PCI desktop machine (my PC box is EISA 486-66)
nor a PCI server. I have heard good things about Cogent's boards, and less than
good things about Intel's.

	If you want to run tests then Perform2 and Perform3 Novell test
programs are on netlab2.usu.edu in the apps directory. I have more stressful
lan adapter test programs (they can melt the wire) from Novell but they are
not for distribution.

	There are other boards, undoubtedly, as good or better than those
mentioned above. Appologies for omission of those units. Raw speed is of
less importance to me than speed plus low server cpu loading. Cpu consumption
is my biggest worry in servers; clients often have nothing else to do. Hence
I go for fast buses and self-sufficient boards on those buses.

	Joe D.

---------

Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 18:33:50 +0100
From: Achim Stegmeier <x03@SUN0.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject: Re: 3C509 cards not for servers?

>>3C509 cards I had in my server were not suitable for a server. Can
>I have a 3C509 card in my server (Novell 3.12) and it works fine!
>I get an excelent preformance from the card, but i use the drivers
>from the 3Com site because there were some (minor) bugfixes. So it's
>nonense to say that the card is not suitable for a server, don't no were
>that person get it from!.

Nice to hear such good news from a very experienced person with deep
technical insight. 8-(

I've dealt with about a dozen servers with such NICs, provided you
have much CPU power left and need only one NIC you can give the 3C509
a try. If you use 2 of them you will experience problmes in about
half of the servers, if you use more, you will run into serious
problems.

Fact is: they are cheap, they are fast, they have a tiny buffer,
they consume much CPU power and they have a very critical bus timing.

P.S.: Somebody else noticed that 3COM seems to have serious quality
problems with the 3C509. Few weeks ago 2 NICs out of a bunch of 15
were broken, another two gave up this week. Never seen such high
failure rates with NICs.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 14:28:36 +0100
From: Achim Stegmeier <x03@SUN0.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject: Re: FAX Server

>My company is currently looking for a good FAX program.  We currently
>run Netware 3.12 with 25 users. any suggestion

Have a look at FaxWare from Tobit (Germany). It's a NLM based solution.
Supports Class II modems and ISDN boards. It's very scalable, you can
start with 5 users/1 line, to many users/many lines + PCL interpreter +
Communications-Server + FaxBack System.

You can separate you Server ( with the NLM ) from the machine with the
actual Fax-HW, useful for load-sharing or SFT-III.

It has different ways to send Faxes: API, Queue and directory, i.e. you
can even send Faxes from Unix machines and programs never intended
to do such things, just put the control code with the fax number in the
document. In addition you can tell the server to overlay the fax with
bitmap, e.g. you letterhead. A Windows print driver is of course also
included. You have Centralized Phonebks + private ones, accessible
from each frontend. ( unlike FaxServe <= 2.x )

Furthermore you have extensive accounting and reporting. IMHO Faxware
has gained huge marketshare in germany, although there are still some
glitches, especially with FaxWare HPCS and NW 4.1 integration.

---------

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 22:19:08 -0400
From: "Larry C. Hansford" <hansford@ERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Fax Servers

>Can anyone recommend a fax server. We have about 600 employees and
>would like to do all faxing through a Netware network. Any help is
>appreciated.

I would recommend that you look a LanSource's FaxPort and WinPort products.
They use a PC on the network with multiple modems that can be used both
as fax server and modem server.  With this setup, you can maintain all
modems and phone lines in one location, and not have modem cards in
individual PCs on the network.  Contact LanSource at roger@lansource.com
for more information and possibly a evaluation copy of the software.

Another alternative is something like Castelle's FaxPress, which is a
1-line, 2-line or 4-line dedicated fax server.  Works very well, but
does not provide the modem server capability as does LanSource's.
Check your local dealer for more information on dedicated fax servers
such a Castelle or U.S. Robotics.

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Modem Sharing Options

>I'm looking for recommendations for an inexpensive yet reliable modem
>sharing solution for a 3.11 network.

The only solution I've found that's easy & straigforward is WinPort from
LanSource Technologies, I think they're in Canada somewhere.

	John Sharpe

------------------------------

RightFax can be reached at #312 - 4400 East Broadway, Tucson, AZ.
Sales: (520) 327-1357 or sales@rightfax.com.

Todd Scheven

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:50:16 EDT
From: "Gary Wilson" <WILSONG@sergievsky.cpmc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Modem Sharing Options

An addition for the FAQ under the sharing modems across a network.

Carbon Copy version 3.0 includes a NASI compliant program that will
allow modems to be shared across a network. It is good for any
program that uses NASI (most major communications programs but no fax
program that I know of)

NMP2 is a shareware program that beats them all. It, like Carbon
Copy, is NASI/NCSI compatible. It is only $50 per modem for as many
users as you've got. AND it has a great little addition that will let
you use Windows fax programs with it across a network. A Windows 95
version is under development. Available on CompuServe and probably
other places.

I don't work for any software company. But I've used both programs
listed in the FAQ and have been frustrated for years. NMP2 is the
best solution I've seen yet. But the Carbon Copy ought to be added
since many users of that program are not aware that they already own
a program that will allow them to share a modem across their network.
And it works well within its limitations.

---------

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:46:18 -0800
From: Todd Scheven <todds@LANSLIDE.COM>
Subject: Re: modem sharing software

>I am looking for other less costly alternative than Novell's that works.
>I would prefer to have a modem at a work station that would be usable by
>everyone on the network.

Two products that I'm aware of are WINport by LANsource Technologies and
Modem Assist Plus. I'm unsure who makes Modem Assits plus, however.

They're both modem pooling products and operate on a non-dedicated PC.
They retail for $199.00 USD and $299.00 USD, respectivley.

---------

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:48:51 GMT
From: Jerry Eichelberger <jeichelb@TECLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Modem 'pool' for Netware 3.12

The most simple modem server software solution is available from Network
Products Corporation.  The BBS is (818) 441-6933.  The phone number is
(800) 638-7765.  Ask for the NMP2 software.

------------------------------

Subject: Re: How do I log into network Via Modem

Have a look at the emulex connect+, this should allow you dial in
IPX/IP access to your ethernet as well as dial out access through the
same modems. Needs (installs) VLMs on workstation/portable PC

Fax Modem share possible!, also comes with 10 user PC anywhere license
(one day I'll get around to installing the thing properly)

peter

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 09:11:44 GMT
From: John Foster <hjf@DACCREWE.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Remote Modem Software

>Does anyone know of any software that would allow one workstation to
>access a modem on another workstation.

There is a shareware product called COMROUTE which does what you require
if you have a Novell NetWare IPX network.

Get your Archie to look for COMRT100.ZIP. I think I got it from Simtel.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 13:57:47 GMT
From: Jerry Eichelberger <jeichelb@TECLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Modem 'pool' for Netware 3.12

I use a software package call NMP.  It is a Novell NCSI modem server and
you can go from 1 to 16 ports.  I run it on a 286 with 4 MB of RAM and
it works great.

You can download a fully functional eval copy (30 days) from BBS or
maybe even on the Internet.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:55:10 GMT
From: Patrick Klos <klos@MV.MV.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell and PPP

>Is it possible to have the novell server dial up an internet provider
>host and establish a SLIP or PPP connection?  What NLM would do this?

I just checked Netware Connect 2.0's manual, but it doesn't explicitly state
it can do this (it should be able to).  Funk Software has a product called
WanderLink that I expect could do this.  If all else fails, we (Klos
Technologies, Inc.) are working on a driver to run in Novell 3.11 (and
above) file servers that will provide this capability (we should release it
in January '96), as well as dialin IP and IPX.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 06:18:01 GMT
From: Pablo Rudaeff <rudaeffp@NETVISION.NET.IL>
Subject: Re: Pool of Modems

In owr factorey we use Remote Lan Node for DCA.  It is a nice product,
and emmulates a NIC without probles.

Connect to the provider of DCA in your country.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 01:52:11 GMT
From: Ken Flower <kenf@EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: Modem 'pool' for Netware 3.12

>I've looking to do the following:
>Allow workstations to grab a modem from a pool of 1-3 modems.  Each modem
>should look like COM1 (or any comm port as long as it's the same one)
>and just grab the first one that's available.

I'm tempted to say NetConnect 2.0 from Novell...that's the easiest BRB (big
red box) solution.  There are other programs out that will do the same job
but they don't integrate as well as NetConnect.  NetConnect can be run from
your existing file server utilizing the serial port on the server.  This
port should be at least a 16550 if you want any decent speed, but in a
pinch it does and will work.  If you want to be a bit faster, get a
DigiBoard.  You can have up to 8 serial ports active.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 20:01:15 GMT
From: Matt & Kelly Collier <kaheny@AIRMAIL.NET>
Subject: Re: Shared modem pools

>I would like to share a few modems in a multi-server 4.10 environment.
>The modems should be at the server or a dedicated modem server
>(workstation).  It would be nice if I could get NDS modem access control.
>The clients are DOS and DOS/WINDOWS.
>Does Novell have any native products or do I go elsewhere?

Check out Modem Assist by Synergy Solutions...  It gives you
NASI/Int14 Modem sharing protocols.  It also comes with an excellent
Windows "redirector".  Their number  (602)545-9797.

As a consultant I have installed this program several times in varied
environments.  It works!

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 15:46:40 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slow Frame Relay Connection

>	We have just installed a 56k Frame Relay line from our office in
>Toronto, Ontario to our office in Clearwater, Florida. The Toronto office
>holds all of the data on a 3.12 Pentium 90 Server. The Clearwater Florida
>server is a 3.11 386-dx40 server that only holds the application. The
>application is written in Foxpro 2.6 for DOS. In each Office connected to
>the Frame and the network are CISCO 2501 Routers. I have installed
>PBURST.NLM on the 3.11 server and PM312.NLM and PBWANFIX.NLM on the 3.12
>server. I have taken the sample net.cfg that is on the FAQ & made changes
>to it to use NE2000 cards. The problem is everything is still slow. By
>using PBURST I was able to speed somethings up but the application is
>still deathly slow with all of it's DBF files. My boss is starting to
>flip out at me so I really could use some help.
-------------
	First, 56Kbps is going to be deathly slow over a link 1 inch long.
The math is simple to perform.
	Second, note that word "relay." It means store and forward, but
does not say at which rate nor how many storages enroute. Each eats at
minimum one whole packet time, plus transmission time from relay to relay
box of your comms provider. Delay and bandwidth are unrelated items, both
affecting throughput.

	Best to talk with your comms provider about end to end delay
budgets. Remember, to gain utmost efficiency the comms channel would have
to be competely full of bits, and ACK's for the oldest would have to arrive
smoothly just in time to add new bits without the transmitter pausing. The
packet storage effect creates an enormous number of bit slots in transit,
far more than IPX is prepared to buffer before receiving an ACK. Pburst is
just that, a negotiated every time burst, not a steady stream.
	Frame relay isn't a leased line in the ordinary sense. It's a
shared line. That means your delay budget is variable and probably without
a written upper bound. A full leased line is a bit bucket, not a store and
forward sharing of some comms channel. You can measure the delay and it
won't change second to second.
	Beyond this I recommend you contact a reputable communications
consultant and have that person negotiate with comms providers about the
particulars that fit your company's networking requirements.
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 14:07:56 -0500
From: Scott Sarty <SRS@BLAKES.CA>
Subject: BBS on Network -Reply

Here we are using WildCat! BBS version 4.10 multi node for multiple
simultaneous access. It is running on a 3.12 Novell server, I have not
tried at 4.x server yet, but plan to test it. The BBS is very secure,
and easy to setup and maintain. It is made by Mustang Software Inc.:
(805)873-2500, sales@mustang.com, www.mustang.com.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 15:03:00 -0600
From: Jim Prato <JIM@TDOA.STATE.TX.US>
Subject: BBS on Network -Reply - Reply

We are using the Major BBS by Galacticom and have been very pleased with it.

Worthy distinctions:

It is very configurable out of the box and has add on packages as well
including an SPX based LAN module  (for Netware). Connections are made
across the wire with a terminal program (supplied).

It has 3rd party add on packages available.

One computer handles multiple connections, as opposed to running several
machines or several copies in QEMM etc.

There is an upgrade to a new product called Worldgroup, with an add on
package (ICO) internet connectivity option that makes your BBS function
as a web site as well all from the same box. A client software is supplied
royalty free. We are not yet using this.

Try http://www.gcomm.com for a demo and additional info.

Finally, you can buy the source code if needed and there is a unix
(big $$$s) based version.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 09:57:33 EST
From: Michael Leone <turgon@VOICENET.COM>
Subject: Re: BBS on a network

>I want to set up a BBS on a dedicated PC on a NW4.1 network which would
>allow people to upload/download files as well as get/leave messages.
I do this with WildCat! v4.11 (on a NW 3.12 net).  Works like a champ.

>But I have 2 concern:  1. I need the BBS on the Network so files which
>are upload can be moved to the proper directories for updating, etc., but
>2. I don't want the people calling in to be able to access the network.
>
>Concern 2 can be controlled manually by putting the PC on the network only
>when doing file maintenance, but I wonder if there is a better way.  Does
>anyone have experience with this?  How is yours set up?

I run mine off the server (this way you can log into the BBS over the wire,
without tying up a modem), because WC has it's own internal email, and this
way my users can log onto the BBS and read their mail.  (My off-site
employees upload/download files, and leave messages for other team members
here at HQ)  If you use MHS (I don't), Mustang Software has an add-on
gateway (wcGate, about 150 US $) that will transfer WC mail to MHS mail. It
also works with internet email (assuming you hook up your BBS to an
internet feed).

Since callers to the BBS only see the file areas (directories) that you
configure WC to use, AND see only the files in these areas that you tell
WC about (by making entries in a files database), AND can set passwords to
those files (to prevent unauthorized downloading), AND can set security
levels for different types of users (read: limit access to file areas),
it's pretty secure.

Users NEVER see a DOS prompt, only WC menus.

I love my system.  It has paid for itself several times over in Fed Ex
diskette shipping charges.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:06:26 PST
From: "Ferrell, Bruce" <bferrell@SMTPGATE.LEVEL1.COM>
Subject: Re: FAXing over a NACS connection...

>Does anyone know of fax software that allows for sending over a Novell
>NACS modem-sharing system?  I'm currently using NACS (via NASI3) to
>allow multiple dial-outs via PC-AnyWhere and would like to make use of
>the FAXing capabilities of the modems that I have on my server.
>
>It would help greatly if the solution allowed faxing from both windows
>and DOS, but windows-only is just fine.

We use WinFax Pro here and it works like a champ.  We did have some
problems initially, but the contents of WINTOO.EXE solved most of them
and rest we solved when we got rid of the Multitech modems in favor of
USRobotics 28.8 modems.

------------------------------

Date: 04 Dec 95 07:39:49 PST
From: McSweeJ%62SVS.MCCHORD@mhs-gw.mcchord.af.mil (Jay A. McSweeney)
To: netw4-l%bgu.edu@mhs-gw.mcchord.af.mil
Subject: Re: Remote Access To netware 4.1

If you don't want to use NW Connect, try Attachmates's Remote LAN Node
product.  We have found that it is a very reasonably priced, high
performance solution, and it is very very easy to set up and manage on a
PC platform.  It needs 8 Mb RAM and only uses around 15  Mb of hard
drive.  Try http://www.attachmate.com.  I think there's a downloadable
demo there.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 10:51:12 
From: "Allen Francom" <afrancom@chrome.com>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Remote Access To netware 4.1

>Does anyone know the best way of setting up remote access for Netware
>4.1. I don't know whether Netware Connect is a good solution. Could
>anyone using it please comment.

I've found that Netware Connect as a communications gateway is
extremely flexible.  I do lots of both in-bound and out-bound things.

We go surfing, telecommuting, access BBS's, etc.,

I do NOT have the latest Netware Connect which supposedly supports PPP
network connections.  This would be cool.

Microsoft Windows for Workgroups does a very impressive job of
connecting via RAS to an NT server, I think, in comparison to Netware
Connect(1.0)'s NRN services.

I am not very happy with Novell's remote networking (remote IPX) client
software.  It is cumbersome and slow to initiate, and it does not look
like it is faster than RAS, although once a connection is finally
established and running, it might be faster...  It just seems like it
takes forever for Netware Connect to get started with each remote
node connection.

For regular dial-in, dial-out stuff, Netware Connect 1 is pretty
awesome, and preferable to any NT solution I am aware of.  Rather than
using remote network connections, we use PC Anywhere with Netware
Connect as the communications gateway.

If Netware Connect 2.0 has PPP, then perhaps it supports a nice clean
easy to setup and use situation like RAS for extension of network
protocol to a remote station.

Our budget does not allow for the upgrade until first quarter 96, so
unfortunately I can't comment about NWC 2.0 from first hand experience.
My guess is that it is way cool.  I'd definitely take it for a test
drive myself before I listened to anyone about how good they think it
is at providing remote network connections.  ( No offense to The
Netware Connect People, but I'd like it to work as
quicly/smoothly/hastle-free as Worgroups and RAS, but SAY "NOVELL" on
the about box, so to speak. )

And although I point out how nice NT and RAS is, that is not to say
that that is what I would recommend as a solution in this case.  I'm
just saying I think Microsoft did a very user-friendly good job of it,
and why in the heck can't Novell's client stuff work that nice ?  How
come Novell can't put some effort into the interface issues ?

Maybe NWC 2.0 has some answers.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 15:02:41 -0500
From: Beardsleyr@aol.com
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Remote Access To netware 4.1

>Does anyone know the best way of setting up remote access for Netware
>4.1. I don't know whether Netware Connect is a good solution. Could
>anyone using it please comment.

pcanywhere works very nicely and is a lot cheaper for small applications.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:16:19 -0500
From: RHROMYKO@aol.com (Russ Hromyko)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Remote Access To netware 4.1

Netware Connect is a great solution.  We have all the modems hooked up to
the server with PCAnywhere on the workstations in the office.  The laptops
use NRN to dial into the network remotely.  Also, the laptops should never
"login" to the network remotely, use the "MAP" command to map F:.  Sending
a login.exe over a telephone line takes way to long. I highly recommend
Netware Connect.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 14:11:12 -0500
From: "Larry C. Hansford" <hansford@ERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Modem server for Novell 3.12

>We're currently researching setting up a 'modem pool' for our Novell
>v3.12 network.  The leader seems to be Modem Assist Plus.  Does anyone
>have any experience, comments, etc. on this product.
>
>Our favorite features are: NOT installed on the server, ability to
>switch to the first available modem, Windows AND DOS access.

Have you looked at LanSource's WINport?  It does all the above very
effectively and is transparent to the user -- each user appears to
have their own modem available.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 11:41:17 PDT
From: JohnW (John Weissgerber) <idiscorp@GATE.NET>
Subject: Re: Modem server for Novell 3.12

>We're currently researching setting up a 'modem pool' for our Novell
>v3.12 network.  The leader seems to be Modem Assist Plus.  Does anyone
>have any experience, comments, etc. on this product.
>
>Our favorite features are: NOT installed on the server, ability to
>switch to the first available modem, Windows AND DOS access.

How about Wanderlink...email me or give me a call.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 18:06:14 GMT
From: Rob Willis <rgwillis@FFX.MOBIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Modem server for Novell 3.12

>We're currently researching setting up a 'modem pool' for our Novell
>v3.12 network.  The leader seems to be Modem Assist Plus.  Does anyone
>have any experience, comments, etc. on this product.
>
>Our favorite features are: NOT installed on the server, ability to
>switch to the first available modem, Windows AND DOS access.

Don't know the product you mention, but check out Shiva LANRover - an
excellent product (and I don't say that often).

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:56:04 -0600
From: Michael Ferro <mferro@MCS.COM>
Subject: Re: Netware Connect 2.0 & Windows 95

>I was wondering if anyone was using this combo along with MS Exchange.
>I am having trouble getting my win 95 client to dial into NWC20.  I read
>messages from people out on Netwire and they claim to be doing it but
>have no kind of instruction to get it done.
>
>Also, anyone use a digiboard portserver/16?

It works, sort of.  We have gotten it to work on 2 out of 4 machines
tried.  Of course, the 2 machines it works on belong to the two computer
people in the firm.  The two it doesn't work on belong to attorneys.
Figures.  Anyway, install the Novell 32 bit client.  Set up a dial up
networking icon to dial into your NWC 2.0 server.  Make sure RNS is
enabled at the NWC server, because Win95 will not work with PPP into NWC 2.0
(yet, they claim it will at some point).  Make sure the dial up networking
is set up to dial a NWC server, and RNS is configured for the user dialing
in at the NWC machine.  Set frame types for the 32 bit client to auto
(control panel, network).  Put a login script on your local machine and
run that one (there is a check box somewhere that says "advanced login"
that needs to be checked in order to enable tabbed dialogs in the login
program.  One of the tabs deals with login scripts, and you can specify a
locally stored one to run.  Try control panel, network, 32 bit client, I
think).  I think that about covers it.  Dial and pray.  It just may
work.  Or not.  This should get you started, anyway.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:49:54 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Novell's angle on frame types?

>>I believe that Novell made a political choice regarding _802.2, it is
>>the frame type that was specified as an OSI frame.
>
>It is an IEEE standard, it predates adoption by ISO/OSI.  It is a
>media-independent standard, Ethernet_802.3 and Ethernet_II are specific
>to Ethernet.

	Ethernet_802.3 is specific to Novell, it's not a formal
standard beyond that usage. Ethernet_II is the defacto standard
for the world's Ethernets, and that counts for something.

>>It's design makes it technically speaking more complicated (not
>>needed), with no technical advantage whatsoever.
>
>It is more complicated than Ethernet_802.3 because it includes a
>protocol discriminator, so does Ethernet_II.  The full IEEE 802.2
>standard is complex, but that is because of features which aren't
>used for IPX (such as LLC2).
>
>>-   Which frame type enables me to run almost all my traffic (IP,
>>    IPX, maybe DecNet ?) ?
>
>DECnet phase V: 802.2 SNAP.
>Appletalk phase 2: 802.2 SNAP.
>SNA: 802.2.
>RIPL: 802.2.
>OSI: 802.2.
>X.25: 802.2.

	Did you ask where that SNAP item came from? As I understand it,
it is an industry response to the failure of the IEEE 802.3 committee
to allocate protocol descriminators/identifiers sufficient for today's
networks.

>Unless your netware server is talking any of these frames they
>are irrelevant.  Many netware servers will be talking IP, Appletalk
>and RIPL, possibly SNA also.  So that's three frame types for a
>start.
>
>>-   Which frame type is the easiest to decode by routers, hence less
>>    load on them ?
>
>>Ethernet_II is the answer.
>
>Rubbish.  What is this extra load of which you speak?

	Tis not rubbish. Try writing a packet handler and discover the
extra steps needed to take apart the "one bridge fits all" LLC interior.
I won't make a point of the LEN field being redundant on Ethernet frames.
Or the refusal of the committee to allocate a protocol ident to ARP.
Seems to me that the IEEE 802.3 committee tried to create a bridge which
was a router, and other camels.

>Remember that token ring doesn't have an equivalent to Ethernet_II.
>It uses only 802.2 and SNAP.  If token ring can do everything with
>these frames, so can Ethernet.  Of course IP on Ethernet_II is
>traditional, but that's no sort of technical reason to use it for IPX.

	So is DECnet on Ethernet_II, with a whole bunch of other protocols.
I can't find any technical advantage to Ethernet_802.2 in today's networks,
none. Ditto Ethernet_SNAP, though Apple insists upon using it currently.
Ethernet_802.3 is an acknowledged mistake and should be abandoned. Which
then raises the point of why did Novell choose 802.2 for their default.
Plenty of not very complementary speculation has been offered.

	Token Ring got caught up in the same "let's make this bridge
be a router" syndrome, and look at the cost.
	Remote booting uses a variety of frames, depending on the flavor
of boot ROM.

>Use whatever frame type you want.  Use the one that makes it simplest
>to set up your network.  Don't worry about non-existent fractions of
>a percentage of extra load.

	Except when traffic gets heavy and servers get loaded, and routers
get equally loaded...
	The advice remains: use Ethernet_II where ever you can. It is the
standard round the world, it uses fewer resources to support, it gives more
user data per frame.
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:58:32 PST
From: "Ferrell, Bruce" <bferrell@SMTPGATE.LEVEL1.COM>
Subject: Re: communication server - Any body.

The simplest solution is Netware Connect.  It used to come with a
runtime version of netware.  Anybody know if it still does?

The hardware is a small server class system equipped with a DigiBoard
or one of several other inteligent multi-port serial cards.

If you get version 1.0 from your dealer, you'll need to apply 3 patch
sets to get accecptable performance.  I have no idea what issues there
are with version 2.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:10:45 GMT
From: Travis Butchart <asccal@CIA.COM>
Subject: Re: Modem server for Novell 3.12

>What the URL Modem Assist Plus?

G into Lycos (www.lycos.com) and search for Synergy Solutions.  They
are the comnpany that makes mdoem assist.

We have been using this product for months now without a problem. We
recently upgrated to their latest version witch turns any windows comm
port into a NASI redirected port.  To the communications program,
however, it just thinks it is an A-Syncronous port (COM1:) and uses it
like there is a modem attached to it.

it's cheap, and you can actually POOL modems.   Meaning, You can group
types of modems together.  If you had 4 28.8's, and 2 14.4's, you
could craete 2 groups. One for the 28.8, and one for the 14.4.  The
28.8 group could be com4: and the 14.4 group could be com3:.  That way
any user can use both types of modems - at the same time!

Also with groups, if one modem is busy, then it will redirect you to
the next not-busy modem.  Pretty slick.

I'm more than happy with it.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 18:06:01 -0800
From: Ken Green <keng@BEST.COM>
Subject: Re: windoows 95 & novell via dial-up networking

>Has anyone been able to connect to a netware server thru win95 dial-up
>server and if so please discuss procedures. Thanks. NetWare 3.12 10 user

I use a Shiva NetModem at the office for those times when things have to
be done after hours. Dial In (Win95) goes right to it and I attach. Was
basically just put the phone nubers in and get hooked up.
Robert Steele wrote:

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:11:15 +1000
From: Richard Phillips <Richard_Phillips@MCINTOSH.COM.AU>
Subject: NetWare Connect 2.0

Hints:

1. Go into Netware Connect Options, Setup Netware Connect, Select
   Netware Connect Services, and make sure that NCS is running.
2. Go into Netware Connect Options, Setup Netware Connect, Define
   Netware Connect Port Usage, and make sure that at least one or more of
   your ports is set to dial-out or dial-in & out.
3. Go into Netware Connect Options, Configure Netware Connect,
   Restrict Service by User and make sure that NCS allows any user (or
   the group/users you want to be able to access it) access
4. Make sure that if not using Netware 4, that you have a user id on
   the server.
5. In Windows, make sure that you have the correct network support
   (Main/Windows Setup). If not sure, run the latest Novel client
   install.
6. Run the Nasi win2ncs install program to allow you to access nasi
   services from within windows via dll.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 09:43:00 PST
From: "Besso, Andre WS&T" <WST14148@WST.GOV.NF.CA>
Subject: Solutions: Netware Connect 2.0 & Win 95

The following may help those who have been having difficulty in getting a
Windows 95 Client Workstation to Dial into a Netware Connect 2.0 Server
using the Built - In Dial Up Networking Features of Windows 95. Since I
have struggled with this issue myself and now have it resolved, I simply
wish to pass along the information I used to anyone interested. Much of
this is excerpts from the Text Files that came with the NWC 2.0 Patch
File Updates. However, there is also additional information that was left
out which really should have been included. I obtained this from
dicussions with a few folks out on CompuServes Netwire Forum.

Note, I'm relatively new to NWC 2.0 and Win95 so apart from the following
information, I really cannot help with any other difficulties you may
have related to this issue. All I can say is "Best of Luck" !!

First to answer one simple question -- you cannot have a simutaneous IPX
& IP connection into a Netware Connect 2.0 Server using the "existing
Win95 Clients". You can dial in using IPX/SPX to access a LAN via RNS,
but if you want IP, you must hangup and dial back using PPPRNS.

Novell's WIN95 client for NWC is expected in early 96.


SECTION # 1
*********************

The following will give a Windows 95 Workstation (using the MS Dial Up
Client for Netware Networks) IPX/SPX access to a LAN via RNS (but no IP).
For IP see my Section # 2


===========
    FIRST !
===========

You must have Netware Connect version 2.0.25. If you don't, download the
patches NWC201.exe and NWC202.exe from Novell's FTP Site and follow the
installation instructions. Be sure to read ALL the *.TXT files that come
with the Patches NWC201 & NWC202.


Set PPPTSM to reject dialback requests from the client.

At the console prompt on the server running NetWare Connect 2.0 (after
applying
NWC201), enter:

SET PPPTSM CALLBACK=OFF

NOTE: You can insert the command in AUTOEXEC.NCF (directly after the
NWCSTART command) to automatically turn callback off, before PPPRNS is
loaded.

Setting PPPTSM callback off will disable user specified callback.  That
is
the dialback selection that is configured with the "Allow User to Request
Dialback to Any Number" option in NWCCON (Set via the Set User Parameters
option on the NWCCON Configure Security menu).  However, the system
administrator can still configure the "Force Dialback to a Specific
Number"
option, and that type of dialback will be in effect even when SET PPPTSM
CALLBACK=OFF has been issued.

The command: SET PPPTSM CALLBACK=ON
will enable callback.


============
    SECOND
============

To Setup Windows 95 NRN for use with NWC:

 TO CONFIGURE:
 On the NWC server side:

 You should be at version 2.0.25 (Download NWC201.exe and NWC202.exe)

 You *MUST* load RNS frame type of ETHERNET_802.3.

 If you have NWC 1.0 and RNS on your server, and you upgrade to NWC 2.0,
you
 have the option to retain RNS as a service on NWC 2.0. But, if you
delete and
 re-install NWC 2.0, RNS is no longer a listed install option. Also if
this is a new installation of NWC 2.0, RNS is also not automatically
installed.

 This is a problem for NWC 1.0 sites which have multiple clients in the
field
 who do not yet have the PPPRNS files.

 The way to manually add RNS services to NWC 2.0 is as follows.

B1. Copy the following files (from your NWC 2.0 disks) to SYS:SYSTEM, (if
they are not already present):

FILENAME     SOURCE
 --------     ------
RNSNCF.NLM   (disk8)
SVCS.DEF     (disk8 - \connect)
SVCDEF.NLM   (disk9 - \nw3x) - for 3.x servers
SVCDEF.NLM   (disk9 - \nw4x) - for 4.x servers

B2. Make certain the RNS.LAN from NWC201 is in SYS:SYSTEM.

B3. Copy the following file to SYS:SYSTEM\CONNECT, (if it is not already
present):
RNS.DEF      (disk8 - \connect)

B4. Copy the following files to SYS:SYSTEM\NLS\4, (if they are not
already
present):
RNSNCF.HLP   (disk8 - \nls\4)
RNSNCF.MSG   (disk8 - \nls\4)
SVCDEF.MSG   (disk9 - \nls\4)

B5. After copying the files, run the following command:
LOAD SVCDEF SYS:\SYSTEM\CONNECT\RNS.DEF

After you run this, when you load NWCCON, you will see RNS as a
loadable/configurable service.

C. To Change RNS Settings After Upgrading to NetWare Connect 2.0.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
C1. Load NWCCON
C2. Choose; Set Up NetWare Connect
C3. Select; NetWare Connect Services
C4. Choose; RNS
C5. Change settings

In the RNS configuration screen, it lists a number of Protocols for
Service. Configured IPX Ethernet _802.3 as suggested with a different
"Net Address" than the one used for PPPRNS or the LAN card it self. Each
segment needs a unique address.


IMPORTANT NOTE!
If a client upgrades NWC 1.0 to 2.0 or loads RNS on a NWC 2.0 system and
then wants to change the RNS configuration, it only shows up in NWCCON
under the Set up NetWare Connect - Select NetWare Connect Services.

>From there you can configure RNS.

Do not try to find/configure RNS from Configure NetWare Connect -
services.
RNS does not show up there at all even though NCS PPPRNS and ARAS do.

******************************

 On the Windows 95 client side:

 1. NETWORK configuration:

     - click the START button, select SETTINGS, select CONTROL PANEL, and
     select NETWORK icon. Change so that you have the ff: settings under
     NETWORK:

     -  CLIENT (Microsoft Client for Netware Networks)
	  - PROPERTIES:
	  - Preferred Server = <your server name> - you *MUST* specify
your
	  server name
	       - First Network Drive = F
	       - Enable Login Script Processing = YES
    - ADAPTER (Dial-Up Adapter)
	 - PROTOCOL (IPX/SPX compatible Protocol -> Dial-Up Adapter)
	      - PROPERTIES:
		  - ADVANCED
		      - Frame Type=802.3
		  - BINDINGS
		      - Client for Netware Networks=YES

 2. DIAL-UP NETWORKING configuration
     - click  the START button, select PROGRAMS, select ACCESSORIES,
select
     DIAL-UP NETWORKING. Select CREATE NEW CONNECTION. Fill in the
     necessary information.
     You should have the ff: settings:

     - PROPERTIES
	   - GENERAL
		  - Server type = NRN:Netware Connect
		    Log on to network = yes
		    Allowed network protocols = IPX/SPX compatible


That's it. You should now be able to Attach and Login to your Network.


SECTION # 2
*********************

The following will give a Windows 95 Workstation (using the MS Dial Up
Client) IP access.


On the Server Side
 ----------------------------
1. You must have Netware Connect version 2.0.25. If you don't, download
the patches NWC201.exe and NWC202.exe from Novell's FTP Site and follow
the installation instructions. Be sure to read ALL the *.TXT files that
come with the Patches NWC201 & NWC202

2. Set PPPTSM to reject dialback requests from the client (as explained
in Section # 1 above)

3. On the NWC Server, Under Configure Services, turned on PAP, and assign
a PASSWORD to the respective accounts. It can be the same or different
than the NWCAP password. But the Key is that YOU MUST HAVE PAP TURNED ON!


On the Win95 Client Side
 -------------------------------------
1. Make sure you have the appropriate MS Dial Up Adapter and TCP/IP
Protocol Driver Installed under Control Panel, Networking.

2.  Create a new DIAL UP NETWORKING ICON (Make New Connection), and enter
in the phone number etc.

 3.  Click on Properties of that ICON, and Click on SERVER TYPE
     Select: PPP Windows 95, Windows NT, Internet
     Unchecked Log On to Network
     Check Software Compression enabled
     Unchecked NetBuei
     Unchecked IPX/SPX
     Checked TCP/IP
      UNDER TCP/IP Settings
 Either :
	Specified an IP Address
	Specified a Name Server Address
      Or:
	Allow Server to Assign an IP
	Allow Server to Assign DNS
  (Note: You must have the address settings defined in NWC for this to
work, also you may need to still specify a DNS address within these
settings; I found that it worked best when I did.)

	Check IP Header Compression
	Check Default Gateway


 Then connect and use the PAP password.
 IT will fail and disconnect if you try the NWCAP password (but if they
are the same - it won't make any difference).

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 10:26:50 EET-2EETDST
From: Bill Magaliff <BILL@SHATIL.NIF.ORG.IL>
Subject: Re: Netware Connect

>Our customer has a NW 3.12 10 users; each user uses a PC / Windows 3.1.
>
>I thinked to use Netware Connect to share the modem, but my dealer has said
>that on the workstions I need a Windows socket program using Int 14 or is
>NASI-conpatible.

Netware Connect can indeed solve your problem.  The latest version 2
comes with a Windows NASI redirector, so that's all you'll need,
aside from the program to connect to the Internet.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 09:45:53 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: filtering mac address in system login script

>My organisation has a remote access facility for users who are
>required to dial in from home or from abroad. We also have a LAN
>management package which scans users as they login. If the user in
>question is dialing in then this software scan can take up to 20
>minutes,obviously undesirable and unproductive. The users are using
>modems and as such do not have MAC address's,however the software
>allows for a MAC address to be sent and the standard is AAAAA9999999 (
>a is alpha and 9 is numeric) where the alpha part is constant.
>
>The problem is that we wish to filter out the dial in users and NOT
>have them scanned - The obvious way to do this would be on MAc
>address i.e P_STATION in the login script - however the Alpha portion
>of the MAC address is the only portion that is constant and it isn't
>possible to interrogate a part of P_STATION in a login script i.e. no
>substring options under Novell Netware 3.1x ( that I know of).
>
>Does anybody know of a way to to filter on partial MAC address's as
>set out above.
------------------

machine name="station%STATION"
set MACID=P_STATION << 6
if <MACID> ="13C523" then
set MYIP="129.123.30.01"
set MYGW="129.123.30.62"
#f:\public\capture /l=1 /q=dot_matrix /ff /tim=30 /notab /nam=r1c1 /noban
#f:\public\capture /l=3 /q=laser /noff /tim=40 /notab /nam=r1c1 /noban
#f:\public\capture /l=2 /q=color /noff /tim=40 /notab /nam=r1c1 /noban
end
if <MACID> ="13C427" then
set MYIP="129.123.30.02"
set MYGW="129.123.30.62"
#f:\public\capture /l=1 /q=dot_matrix /ff /tim=30 /notab /nam=r1c2 /noban
#f:\public\capture /l=3 /q=laser /noff /tim=40 /notab /nam=r1c2 /noban
#f:\public\capture /l=2 /q=color /noff /tim=40 /notab /nam=r1c2 /noban
end
	etc
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 12:07:18 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Netware Dialup solutions

>We are testing the ability of a Xyplex terminal
>server to provide IPX access over our dialup lines.

	We will be in the same situation next week.

>Xyplex provides client software that you can use on your home computer to
>dialup the terminal server and access a Netware server via IPX but we
>were wondering what other client software solutions are available out
>there?
>
>What is Novell's standard software for IPX dialup access?

	SLIP_PPP.COM
	This is an ODI component (MLID) for clients, normally assocated
with Lan WorkPlace for DOS. [Btw, we have Brian Meek to thank for having
the LWP/DOS TCP/IP stack available and at no cost to us. LWP/DOS was his
baby, and he was the advocate for wide low/no cost distribution of the
core stack.]

>What are you people using in similar configurations?

	My experience is people listen to advice only sparingly, if at all.
They tend to grab whatever is "free" across the net, try it, fail, yell for
help all over, and then get really obstinate about comments on their choice.
Locally we provide the LWP/DOS core TCP/IP stack + SLIP_PPP, and we provide
the Telebit Netblazer ODIPPP.COM module to talk to our NetBlazer modem pool.
What Xyplex offers is not known to me this week, but we'll find out shortly.
Thus we try to help and then we stand back and let folks do what they want.
	For the most part IPX traffic over telco links is fairly small
because a) students don't have access to NW file servers remotely, and
b) serial is so slow. The majority of the telco traffic is SLIP or PPP
carrying IP packets, doing the expected variety of things folks do with
TCP/IP. That means people pickup a SLIP Packet Driver (try mine,
SLIP8250.COM) or PPP module from all over.
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 17:45:22 EST
From: Christopher Diebold <cdiebold@ENGLEWOOD.LIB.CO.US>
Subject: Re[2]: Win95 and Netware Connect Client on Laptop.

>I am trying to install the Netware Connect Client from version 2.0 on to
>Win95. I tryed to integrate the Netware Client for Dos/Windows with Win95
>but didn't succeed because one has to load PCMCIA drivers on the laptop
>before loading the Netware Connect Client. I tryed to load the 32 bit
>Netware client but this didn't help either because the NWC client has to
>be loaded from DOS. What can I do ? Does Novell intend to develope a NWC
>client for Win95 ? Is there any other way ? Does Win95 have anything
>preloaded that I can use ?

Use a 32bit Netware client, 32 bit drivers for the PCMCIA, and load
the Netware Connect Client in the winstart.bat in C:\windows.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 08:55:13 +0000
From: Chet Durnal <CDURNAL@STAFF.LIB.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: telnet into netware

One CAN telnet to a netware server indirectly. I am using an
excellent product called Everywhere Access. The software runs on an
OS/2 machine. One can telnet to this machine and it can create
multiple simultaneous sessions within which one can login to a
Netware server as though sitting at a machine on the LAN. To
contact the company, send mail to info@snsi.com The company name is
Supro Network Software Inc. Their phone number in Canada is
705-652-1572.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 14:24:04 CST
From: Wayne Copeland <WCOPELAN@DES.STATE.MN.US>
Subject: pcANYWHERE and VLM's - A Solution

Since other people have/had the same problem and have asked for the
solution if I find one:

From Symantec's FTP site is the following from their FAQ about VLM's
and pcANYWHERE (it worked for my problems):

ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/windows/pca/

(There is an update for ver 2.0/Win on their FTP site as well.)

Q4.1: The Host of our PC Anywhere is a node on our Novell 3.12 network.
We want to set it up so that the DOS TSR is used and waits in DOS for
the caller.  When the caller connects, we want him/her to login to the
network, then go into Windows.

Everything seems to work fine (the network accepts the login name and
password), except right after the password is entered, everything
freezes.

We've tried the different -M options for the DOS TSR, had people try to
connect while Windows was running, then exit and log in, but with the
same result.  Any suggestions?  Thanks.

[A]  Are you using Netware VLMs? If so, find the ALLOW REMOTE DRIVE
MAPPING setting on your PCA HOST DOS TSR options and disable it. That
should take care of the problem.

Q4.2: Does anyone have any ideas as to why pcAnywhere for Win 2.0 locks
up DOS's tsr when using the VLM's after attempting to log on the
network?  Also, is there a work around for this?

[A]  If you disable the PCA Remote drive mapping feature, you should
have no problems using the VLM drivers.  Also, another thing to try is
to load the Host tsr before the network drivers on the Host.  PCA 2.0
currently acts the same way as 5.0 for DOS in this manner.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:15:57 PST
From: Luke Mitchell <mitchlt@NANDO.NET>
Subject: Re: NetWare Connect V1.0 NCS

>According to the NetWare Connect V1.0 manual, "Dialing-in via NASI"'s
>requirement is to setup a dedicated workstation on the LAN.  If we like
>to set up, say 5 remote nodes, do we need five dedicated workstations
>on the LAN ? Or, can we share one dedicated workstation between five ?
>If we can, I assume that we have to use same third-party application.

If you are to set up a remote control application such as ReachOut, PC
Anywhere, etc.  you would need a workstation for each concurrent
connection.  If you have 25 mobile users who need up to 5 connections,
you can set up 5 machines.  Load NASI using the same ID and password on
each. Use different session names such as "remote1, remote2, remote3..."
and load the Remote control Host software configured for NASI/NCS. Leave
the workstations logged out. When users dial in they are asked for a
Netware Connect ID and password.  If they use the same name and password as
the 5 pc's, they will get a list of the session names of the available
pc's.  They choose one, they then have a password in the remote control
software security, and poof their are in control of a not-logged in pc.
They then log in using their normal ID and go from there.

One other very cost effective way to do this if users want to log in from
their home pc is to configure batch file for their work desktop pc so they
can leave it waiting for a call.  In this case they would use their own ID
for NASI (on host and while signing in) and when they get a list of
available services, it will contain only one--their own desktop pc.  This
is much cheaper than dedicated pc's or CUBIX processors (what I use) and
they have access to their own normal C: drive.  It does not help if the
users have laptops that they undock when they leave.

I use a combination of the above methods on Connect 1.0 using ReachOut
remote control software and find it works well.  I'm sure there are other
approaches, too.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 17:51:27 -0800
From: Robert Olsson <ro@NETMASTER.CYNCRONA.SE>
Subject: Re: remote access

>need to s/u remote access, (phone line) to ck data base, e-mail.. etc
>thru dial up... h/w on hand.. 2 3.12 server, 1 4.1 server, 1 nt
>server..don't want to use a commserver, w/ i.e closeup, pc any..etc...
>novell has a new client for remote access... has anybody installed one?
>also will be connecting three branches to the main office.. most likely
>t1.. wan etc.. but we want to get rid of the commserver w/ closeup.. any
>good suggestion on how to approach to make cost effective an easy to
>maintain even if not pc/lan literate...ch

If you're looking for a professional solution then 3Com has a family
of Remote Access Servers called AccessBuilder. They support dial-up
modems, ISDN and sync. WAN links, protocoll support include routing
for IP, IPX and AppleTalk and bridging for the rest. As far as IPX
connections are concerned, all you have to do is hook it up to the
network, define the modemtypes you are using, install the client
software and you're up and running. Lots of security features also
included. Check it out at http://www.3com.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 17:29:32 +0000
From: "Tim Stewart" <timmy@primenet.com>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Connectivity... Concepts...

>In the near (but not too near) future, I'll be making my first attempt in
>creating a communications server.  This is what (I think) I know:
>
>A dedicated machine will be hooked up to the network..
>This machine must have a Digi-board or similar multi-modem hardware...
>and this machine must have a remote access software such as NWconnect, or
>other...
>
>I understand the dialing in to access the network...
>
>Q:  Will I need a modem and data line for each individual that needs to
>remotely access programs on their desktop PCs, or in other words, they
>cannot use the comm server?

With Netware Connect, and remote control software such as PC
Anywhere, you're all set, and you can use the shared modem pool,
without having to dedicate the analog line/modem to each PC which
must be remotely controlled....you leave the RC software running on
the host PC, register it with Netware Connect, and once the remote PC
effects it's PPP connection  to the network via NWC, the remote user
simply fires up his remote control software, finds his pc, and he's
in!

>Q:  When Dialing-in to the comm server, will any comm software work,
>or does it have to be a partner to the software operating the comm
>server?

With Netware Connect, I imagine it must be the PPP client software
provided by Novell.  Don't worry though, it's freely distributable to
all of your remote access users, and once you get the hang of it, not
too difficult to set up...it's similar to the PPP connection you may
be using to access the internet, only specific to NWC, and the Novell
environment.  One thing I'm not sure of yet, and others may be able
to comment, is how it handles TCP/IP connections...can I, for
instance, use Trumpet Winsock, and the client software of my choice,
to telnet to unix hosts, through NWC?

>Q:   How, in 25 words or less, does one at their workstation access the
>comm server?  Does something take over the comm port(s) in the same
>manner a client redirects the LPT ports?  (my guess)

Correct.  Again, using NWC as a reference, there is supplied with
NWC, a NASI redirector called  WIN2NCS, with which users can use any
old comm software, and behind the scenes, win2ncs will redirect the
communications from the normal com port, to the Netware Connect
server, via NASI.   DOS applications can also do this, provided they
have support for NASI.  NASI is loaded as a tsr, then the DOS comm
program, such as Qmodem Pro, is configured to access the NWC server
using NASI, instead of the normal com1, com2, etc.  I've tested this
with America Online, and Procomm Plus, both work without problems.
Sorry this was more than 25 words.  <G>

>Q:   Where does the mail transfer agent fit in?  Can it use the comm
>server, or does it have to be a dedicated machine with its own line?

Remember, with Netware Connect, remote node clients are really as if
they were attached to the local network, thought via an asynchronous
modem connection.  They should, in theory, have full access to
whatever mail system you are using.  Just be sure to have the client
software for your mail system on the remote user's local hard drive.
Even at 28.8 with v.34, running applications remotely can be quite
slow!

>Q:   Am I asking too many questions?  :)

Nope...these are all the questions I've asked before I decided to go
with Netware Connect 2.0....does everything I wanted it to do, and
it's a breeze to set up!

>What are your recommendations for comm server software?  Of course, I've
>heard of NW connect...  I've heard good comments about one from STAC,
>but I can't remember the name.

[NetWare Connect 2.0]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 17:26:25 GMT
From: Chris Wheeler <c.wheeler@TECHSMITH.COM>
Subject: Re: Dial up access to Novell

>Eventually, I'm looking to provide telephone dial up access to the
>server so that users can access the internet.  I'm interesed in
>feedbacks regarding others who have similar setup and reccomendations
>with regards to particular products.

Check out TechSmith's Foray PPP Server.  Foray PPP Server is a remote node
software solution that runs on a dedicated MS DOS PC.  You can license
1, 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 ports, pricing starts at $49.95 for the 1-port and
$189.95 for the 4-port.  You can download an eval from our Web site at:
	http://www.TechSmith.com/
It's easy to setup especially if you're familiar with Netware.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:35:01 -0500
From: Maddogmbw@aol.com (Mike Worden, CNE)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Connectivity... Concepts...

>...first attempt in creating a communications server.  This is what (I
>think) I know:
>
>A dedicated machine will be hooked up to the network..
>This machine must have a Digi-board or similar multi-modem hardware...
>and this machine must have a remote access software such as NWconnect, or
>other...
>
>I understand the dialing in to access the network...
>
>Q:  Will I need a modem and data line for each individual that needs to
>remotely access programs on their desktop PCs, or in other words, they
cannot
>use the comm server?
>        (I'm thinking yes...)

You bet ! You'll need a modem for the support of each remote user connection.
Usually, the number of modem's / Comm lines is estimated based on a
percentage of total remote users likely to be dialing in simultaneously...
plus that quantity of lines needed for simultaneous "dial out" users (if any,
and assuming you're looking into Netware Connect).

>Q:  When Dialing-in to the comm server, will any comm software work, or does
>it have to be a partner to the software operating the  comm server?

Depending on the type of Comm server you install the answer could go wither
way. Some (like Citrix WinView) have their own client interface for the
remote users... Netware Connect has it's own interface utility for "Remote
Node Services", but if you're looking for "Remote Control" you can use just
about any commercial remote control utility (i.e. Carbon Copy or PCAnywhere).

>Q:   How, in 25 words or less, does one at their workstation access the comm
>server?  Does something take over the comm port(s) in the same manner a
>client redirects the LPT ports?  (my guess)

If you're asking about dial-in... it's a simple matter of having the dialer
stike up a connection with the comm server on a dial-up asynch. If you're
talking about dialing out from the LAN to an alternate service, most good
utilities are configurable for a "Network" connection rather than a physical
serial resource.

>Q:   Where does the mail transfer agent fit in?  Can it use the comm server,
>or does it have to be a dedicated machine with its own line?

What type of mail are you asking about ??? I can talk about GroupWise and
it's function... If you're dialing in through Netware Connect, and using an
RNS (Remote Node Services) connection, the transfer of mail to the remote
mail interface (on the remote machine) is done the same way as it you were
connected directly to the net (in essence you are connected directly with
RNS).

This can be slow, and cumbersome for users depending on their knowledge
level. In the GroupWise scenario, I'd use the GroupWise Asynch Gateway for
the mail transfer. You can install it on the same server as Netware Connect,
and even share a Digi Board (but NOT share ports). Other mail packages should
have equivalent utilities to the Novell GroupWise utils mentioned here (i.e.
cc:Mail Router, and cc:Mail Remote).

If your comm server is something a little more full featured, like Citrix
WinView or WinFrame (the NT version) you may not be able to share the ports
for dial-out, or the passing of mail. Check the literature...

>What are your recommendations for comm server software?  Of course, I've
>heard of NW connect...  I've heard good comments about one from STAC , but I
>can't remember the name.

Don't know the STAC product, but I've done a piece of work with the "Citrix
WinView for Networks". This is the OS/2 based version, and it worked just
fine. Plan on a pretty stout server for the host, as it's going to be sharing
it's processor, memory, and other vital guts for all concurent virtual
sessions. I've not worked with the NT version (WinFrame), but it's on my desk
awaiting !!

As for the hardware, (and I don't know what your physical scope is) you may
want to consider looking into hardware platforms like CommVision, and Cubix
for e foundation. PLENTY expandable, environment manageable, and varying
levels of actual "hot plug" on the adapters... But... remember, you get what
you pay for !!!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:09:16 +0100
From: Henno Keers <Mailbox@ICE.NL>
Subject: Re: Fax-servers

> I have been tasked with searching out fax server products
>and implementations with the end goal of making a recommendation.
> Would you please send me information on how you have
>implemented your fax-server, or if you looked and didn't implement,
>your reasons for waiting.

All you fax-server searchers may take a peek at QNT's QPserver, take
a peek on http://www.QNT.NL.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:59:42 -0600
From: Mark Barton <mbarton@ACCESS-ONE.COM>
Subject: Re: NWConnect 2.0 & Practical Peripheral Pro 28.8

>Having a problem with NW connect 2.0 and Practical Peripheral 28.8 Pro
>Modems - where are the most upto date drivers for the PracPro 28.8?

The latest modem scripts can be found at:
	ftp.novell.com\pub\updates\dial\nwc2\nwcmod.exe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:34:47 -0500
From: LRoomberg@aol.com (Leon Roomberg)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Cheyenne Faxserve Recommendation

In the last 3 years, I have recommended, purchased, or supported
more than a dozen implementations of this product.

It is the most stable under stress I have seen and works great within
the Novell environment.  (Just make sure you follow the directions
and have sufficient memory on your Novell server.  This can run
on the "central" Novell file and print server or can run on a "run time"
(2 user) server of its own.

If you are looking for a non-Novell-NLM solution that works on only one PC
on the network that is software-only and works with almost anyone's
modems and hardware, consider Multi-Modem by Multi-Tech.
1-612-785-3500 or 1-800-328-9717

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 20:34:35 -0500
From: Glenn Fund <gfund@HOMENET.ULTRANET.COM>
Subject: Re: Fax Server Products

Biscom makes an entire line of FAX servers.  One of their offerings is NLM
based.  Direct printing to the FAX and direct mail (cc:Mail and MS:Mail) to
a FAX is also possible.

If you get daring, you can even do direct inward dialing, OCR and routing
or printing to a network printer.

(508) 259-1800 or (800) 477-2472

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:12:41 -0500
From: LIZON Philippe <Philippe.Lizon@CR-AQUITAINE.FR>
Subject: Re Shared Network data modem to be used  by Win95 users

>Could anyone let me know the best productive/efficient way to:
>allow my Netware users share network modems (stand-alone like US
>robotics's Shared Access; or  Netware Connect),  however, users will
>run Windows 95's MS netware client (which do not have any VLM/NETX
>shell).

A shareware product called Stomper will let you do this.
It will work either on win 3.1 or win 95 stations and will let you use
every modem on every station over you network.

	ftp://ftp.u-net.com/com/acl/stomper
	ftp://cyberstation.net/pub/silvrado/stomper
	ftp://ftp.dyson.brisnet.org.au/pub/clarion/stomper
	ftp://www.acl.co.uk/com/acl/stomper
	http://dyson.brisnet.org.au/~cugq/stomper.html

Or on Compuserve:
	GO PCCOM
or	GO PCPRO

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:57:32 +0100
From: Bruno BELHASSEN <Bruno_Belhassen@EUROPE.NOTES.PW.COM>
Subject: Shared network data modem to be used by win95 users

>Could anyone let me know the best productive/efficient way to:
>allow my Netware users share network modems (stand-alone like US
>Robotics's Shared Access; or Netware Connect), however, users will
>run Windows 95's MS netware client (which do not have any VLM/NETX
>shell)?

You could use Shiva LanRover's product. It's a gateway which comprising
several modems (4, 8, 16, etc..) and is connected directly to the network.
(Ethernet or Token/ring)

It has 3 characteristics :

 - DIAL-IN (Access Netware server from remote access)
 - DIAL-OUT (Share network modems from LAN)
 - LAN TO LAN

The clients use DIAL-UP built in Windows 95 to access netware server
from LAN and Shiva DIAL-OUT to use shared network modem.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:00:49 CST
From: Elbert LaGrew <lagrew@SUNNY.HEALTH.STATE.MN.US>
Subject: Re: IPX and IP Over 56Kb Lines (reply)

>I need info about universities that are allowing IPX and IP over
>T1/56KB lines.  And also about universities that do not allow
>this.

Well, I do not represent a University, but our state WAN does allow
IP and IPX traffic over 56Kb lines.

>And I'd like reasons why they do or do not allow both protocols.
>I realize that 56 KB is very slow.  But I'd like to know if some
>people out there have been able to make it work so that neither the
>IPX world nor the IP world seem to notice slowness over the T1
>specifically.

IPX tends to be a little 'chatty' since it requires and ACK for
packets received.  However, this can be reduced considerably by using
Pburst on the Netware side of things.  Also new advancements in reducing
SAP (Service Advertisement Protocol) can reduce the bandwidth used extensively,
not to mention SAP filters in routers, etc.

Any way you slice it though, IPX is still slow over a 56Kb line.  We
move large files around during off-hours to allieviate some of this
and load as many apps as we can on local servers to prevent loading
accross the WAN.

>In the last year, I have noticed that there has been a thread on
>Netware IP and Netware Administrators changing to only Netware IP.
> Is this because of problems that IPX causes on the network?  Are
>there definite advantages to only having IP and not having a mix?

>Some of the myths/info I'd like to clear up is is IP more robust
>than IPX--not sure of the definition of "robust". is IPX "better
>behaved" than IP?

The rule of thumb is "IP for WANs and IPX for LANs".  It really depends
on whose thumb is holding the nail.  We have had good throughput
on our 56Kb links routing both IP and IPX.  However, we do have extensive
SAP fileters in our routers to cut down on bandwidth used on the WAN.

With 350+ Netware servers, not to mention, print servers, concentrators,
switches, etc, the bandwidth can really be sucked up fast.  This is more
of a WAN policy decision than anything.

---------

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:19:30 +-100
From: Eric Hall <ehall@NWC.COM>
Subject: Re: IPX and IP over T1/56KB lines

IP and IPX are very similar, with no "outweighing" benefit to either.

The problem with NetWare is that SAP packets get sent between every
server every few seconds. With a small pipe (like a 56k WAN), you have
high latency, so you can only send so many packets through it per
second. If you have a big network, then you will fill up your small pipe
with SAP packets.

This causes very bad performance, as there is not much of the pipe left
to handle user data packets.

NetWare/IP's benefit is that it will cache the SAP packets on the local
segments, and only send changes and updates across the link. This gives
you your pipe back, since you're not flooding the link with SAPs every
few seconds.

There are other issues, such as RIP routing broadcasts, and NCP's
requirement for acknowledgement, but you can fix these without giving
up IPX.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:17:47 -0400
From: Glenn Fund <gfund@HOMENET.ULTRANET.COM>
Subject: NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas '96 In Review

Equinox Serial Modem Pool - SST-64(I=ISA, E=EISA, M=Micro
Channel) Board $695,  SST-128(I,E or M) $995, PM8-DB (DB25) or RJ
8 (RJ-45) $495,  PM16-DB (DB25) or RJ 16 (RJ-45) $795, Other
configurations are available, Equinox Systems,
http://www.equnox.com, (305) 746-9000

High speed, low CPU utilization modular muti-serial port system.  Can be
configured with from 8 to 128 serial ports per single SuperSerial Processor
Card.  Up to 8 SSP cards can be installed in a single server PC which
translates to 1024 possible serial ports.  The SSP utilizes its own ASIC
Busmaster processor to keep CPU utilization down and performance up.
Maximum sustainable speed on all dial-up ports is 230Kbs (with
compression), an industry leader.  Equinox relys on third party software for
access.  Euqinox products are certified and supported on SCO UNIX,
SVR4 UNIX, Citrix WinFrame, Novell NetWare and Microsoft NT.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:08:54 -0500
From: Douglas Brewer <dbrewer@PHS.K12.AR.US>
Subject: Re: Multiple user access, single modem line

>We'd like to provide internet access to several (5-7) workstations which
>are networked via a NW 3.12 server. In order to minimize costs, we'd like
>to provide simultaneous access through a single 28.8 modem.

A 386 computer running Linux (A free copylefted UNIX like OS) can allow
you to connect to a provider and grant internet access to any machine you
want to that's on your network and running tcp/ip.  Disallow any incoming
connections for securities sake and run a proxy server (such as spinner)
or sockd to act as a basic firewall.  Properly configured you will have a
reasonably secure system, (The only secure system is the one Joe D. keeps
locked in that concrete bunker.  <grin>) and will still enable your people
to use the internet for information surfing.

You would need to have the cooperation of your friendly ISP if you wish to
have a domainname and mailing capabilities direct to your internel mailing
system.  (plus pay the price)  Or you could go with one of the ISP plans
that sell 'business' accounts that provide X number of mail accounts on
their server.  The latter is usually less expensive.  Here in my area a
dedicated 28.8 slip connection is $250/month, a 56k is $400 but an 80
hour/month business account with 6 mail ids is $65.

Experience has shown that 4-5 people can get along with a single 28.8
connect so long as they don't all try to access sites with ton's of
graphics at the same time.  That's another good reason to run a
proxy/caching server like Spinner.  The first person who goes and nabs
www.usatoday.com's home page will store it locally so that the next person
doesn't have to go backout and drag the same information across that
little ole 28.8 line.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 09:12:06 +0200
From: Robert Olsson <ro@NETMASTER.CYNCRONA.SE>
Subject: Re: Network Mobile Access

>I am looking for opinions on what works best to connect Mobile and
>Telecommuting users to our network.
>
>Options are open, I would not want them to connect at anything less than
>28.8, and they would need to have access to Netware 4.1, Appletalk and
>TCI/IP for e-mail.

3Com have a very nice product-family called AccessBuilder. They handle
modems, ISDN and leased lines. Routes TCP/IP and IPX, bridges everything
else. Very easy to install and lots of security features.
Check it out at: http://www.3com.com:80/0files/products/bguide/7.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:45:20 -0700
From: Mike Wade <mikewade@INFINET.COM>
Subject: Re: remote

We have Shiva's LanRover/E Plus and it sucks.  It's slow, it's expensive
and their support is absolutely, unquestionably the worst I've encountered
in 15 years of this business (at the rate of $150/call at that!).  Many
reviews tout it but my experience with Shiva has been horrible and I've
advised a number of network administrators to stay the h_ll away from
Shiva.  Next week, I'm attempting to return the whole mess to my vendor.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 16:48:46 EDT
From: Kelly Stevens <Kelly_Stevens@GALE.COM>
Subject: Dial-in Access Information

>We are a private college with an enrollment around 2000. We are looking
>for a enterprise solution that will give faculty/staff and students dial
>in access to the network. We have a full t-1 connection to a internet
>provider, and we use Davinci for our e-mail.
>
>We want to provide to provide PPP dial in access so they can connect to
>the internet from their home, and access their e-mail.

Are you going to allow remote access to Novell  Networks also?

Try a 1 user license of WanderLink by Funk Software.

This will allow dial-up access with IPX or TCP/IP connections to a Novell
server.   The client software is free.  I paid $2495.00 for Server 16 user
license last year.  I used a RocketPort  board by Comtrol.  16 ports
(upgradable to 32) for $1000.00   The client has DOS and Windows
software and can be installed in 10 minutes on the Server and 10 minutes
on the client.  This is much easier than Novell Netware Connect!

You have to have mulitboot menu if you have an ethernet
card in the remote client.    Both have WEB pages.   I purchased through
Midwest Computer Works in Buffalo Grove IL.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 03:18:37 +0000
From: "Cheryl A. Matrasko" <caml8d@HAROLD.LAW.NWU.EDU>
Subject: Faxing from Novell Netware LAN

>Could anyone offer help on the steps and costs involved in setting
>up a modem gateway for a novell 3.11 network. We want people at
>our office to be able to send faxes from their computer thru a network
>modem that would be available to everyone. What software to buy ?
>what hardware ? and how much ?

My boss ordered an Intel NetsatisFaxion Modem and the NetsatisFaxtion
Software version 3.5 (we later upgraded to 3.51) and I set it up on
the LAN.  I setup an HP 386, installed a NIC, the Faxmodem, and then
installed the Server  software. It was very easy process actually to set
up this little FaxServer!!! I was amazed. I was able to import the
binderies from all the servers after installing the Client to my
desktop.
	 The Client software must be installed to each and every
user's desktop, but it's easy to do from the server. We have three
persons that have been give Supervisory status and a few that are
Administrators that forward faxes that come directly to the server.

	Faxes sent can be sent directly to the user directly. When users
are entered into the fax server from the Netware bindery you must
enter in a distinct number at the "extension" box  (phone extension or
some other convention  as long as it is a unique number for the user).
By having the sender enter in the phone number at his end, then add in 4
pauses, and add in the unique number nnumber listed in the user's user ID),
followed by a # sign. Once the call is picked up by the modem, it
liostens to the tones, senses the pause lengths, and hears the
follwing tones of the unique number, and checks the number in the
fax server bindery and gets the associated Netware USER ID. It then
forwards the fax to that particular User ID.

	Should a fax be sent to the fax number with no unique number, it
sits in the Faxability Inbox, sends the signal to all the Fax Server
Administrators that there is a fax that needs to be forwarded from
the Inbox.  A fax Administrator is able to read the first page
(usually a cover sheet) and can identify where it must destined to
go. Here it is electronically forward by the Administrator to the
USER ID.

	It is a nice and very practical tool. At first the Users complained
about having to learn how to use it (they were just learning
Windows), but now they just can't live without it. It is easy to learn how
to use it. We only use the Windows version, so it makes things very
easy.
	 I maintaintain the server once a month by archiving the log
files, and deleting them so they don't take much disk space. I check
the inbox for faxes that have no identity as to whom the receiver
should be. Supervisors are the only ones that can open the fax up in
it's entirety to read it. We do it rarely.

	My boss chose a good utility!

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:06:00 -0400
From: Xavier Wolfe <XAVIER@SEITZ.COM>
Subject: Re: Modem fax gateway for Novell 3.11

>Could anyone offer help on the steps and costs involved in setting
>up a modem gateway for a novell 3.11 network. We want people at
>our office to be able to send faxes from their computer thru a network
>modem that would be available to everyone. What software to buy ?
>what hardware ? and how much ?

I recomend Connect2's C2Fax (there's another that allows
RECIEVING of faxes to a worksation, too.) My system has a 386 that is
dedicated to a network modem (14.4 baud). So, figuring a 386 board
costs about $50 and 14.4 modems another $50, plus the cost of the
software (I'm not quite sure how much that costs, i'll get back to
you on that) -- its not that much. Connect2 has lots of packages that
work w/ a MHS mailing system.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 08:29:02 +0200
From: Henno Keers <Mailbox@ICE.NL>
Subject: Re: Opinion wanted: Fax Server, using PostScript fonts

>Just soliciting some opinions.  I want to set up a fax server for a small
>Novell 3.12 network. The complication? All outbound faxes are created in
>MS Word for Windows using PostScript fonts, and not every product has PS
>support built-in. (I can live without inbound, if necessary, since we don't
>have DID lines). There's where the winnowing of products comes in.
>
>- FACSys will handle PostScript - with a $2K co-processor board.
>
>- Castelle's web site says support for incoming only.
>
>- Cheyenne says No Problem, but it needs to be installed in a File Server
>  (Anybody know where I can get a 2 user runtime 3.12?  I prefer to let the
>  file server alone for the moment.)
>
>- Object Fax says No Problem, but it needs to be dedicated.
>
>- Already have a SatisFAXtion board, so GammaLink/BrookTrout are out.

You may want to take a peek at QP-Server from the dutch company
Quality NetWare Tools (QNT). This is a dedicated server product that
is extendable via qlm's (sort of nlm's). This way you can give the QP-
server dial-in and e-mail capabilities (via Pegasus Mail).
Check out their web site: http://www.QNT.NL

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 96 22:42:47 -0700
From: Randy Grein <rgrein@halcyon.com>
To: "NetWare 4 list" <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: Cheap WAN?

>Nonetheless, can you give me an idea of what I would need if they went
>with 3.12?  I'm imagining a dedicated workstation on each LAN talking to
>each other via modem, (gateways?) but I'm hazy on the details.

Depends on what they need to access. For example, if the primary need is
for email transfer and light file access, a singleframe-relay or ISDN
link would be attractive. And no, the phone company should be able to use
the existing wire to your building. People would likely access the local
server for applications, etc and rarely link across town the the far
server.

Now if you've got an accounting application or other non client-server
application these people simply MUST have, then remote control becomes
attractive. This can be achived over the same line - all the remote
control applications allow LAN access now. This does mean 1 host machine
for each simultaneous workstation connection for most, unless you use
Citrix Winframe. I used to do a lot with Citrix before they moved to an
NT platform, but the basics are still there - full windows (now Win95)
emulation for 16 simultaneous sessions, and the most efficient client
I've ever seen. Windows is useable in a production environment with a
2400 bps connection, and 9600 feels like you're right there!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:03:54 -0400
From: Sherri Colon <SHERRI@cobraelec.com>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: dial-in remote access -Reply

We reviewed the remote dial-in products a few years ago, and settled
on Shiva. It has worked pretty well. Now that they own Powerburst,
they will be bundling it into their unit in '97. Powerburst is a product that
speeds up transmission by eliminating unnecessary, redundant Windows
calls that go out to the network (at least that is how I understand it). We
chose not to go with Netware Connect, mainly because they didn't have
the ability to handle an operator-assisted call. We have that requirement
because our executives are frequently using international hotels that
force you to use their operator to get an outside line.
We also use the Groupwise async gateway for Email only calls,
because it is so much faster and can tolerate worse line conditions than
the Shiva software.
The Shiva dial-out service is great. We are getting more and more
requests for access to CompuServe and the Internet. This way we don't
need phone lines for each station. And when it's time to upgrade the
modems, we don't have to do it for each workstation.
The one area we run into difficulty is with the Comm.drv line in the
system.ini file. That line can reference one driver. We have a fax
software that wants to replace the Shiva driver with it's own. So the
user can have either one or the other. This is not a frequent problem,
because many applications don't use that line.

---------

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 08:17:35 -0400
From: MIssMicki@aol.com
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: dial-in remote access

>I need to know what you people think is the best method of remote dial-in
>access to a NetWare 4.1 server. What do people think of products like
>WanderLink (by Funk Software) and Remote Access (by Shiva)? Also, could
>NetWare Connect serve this role as well, or is it used for something
>different? What I'd like to be able to do is attach a modem to the server to
>allow a remote client to dial-in and have their usual access to the LAN.
>
>I would also like to know if there's a way of using a remote modem through
>the LAN. For example, I'd be logged into the LAN through my computer (which
>doesn't have a modem) and have some way of using a modem which is in
>another computer (server or workstation) somewhere else on the same LAN.
>Is this possible?

We are using Citrix WinFrame with WindowsNT 3.5.1 and just love it.  Modems
hang off that box and not on the LAN.  They also have dummy stations for a
fraction of the cost of a PC.  An excellent choice for someone working from
home with little or no computer experience.  And fast too.  Feels like
Pentium speed for the user.  I'm able to set up user profiles that cannot be
tampered with on their end and it only takes seconds to add a new user.
WinFrame gives them access to their hard drive as well as their "A" drive,
which I could not get in the OS/2 version.  Glad I upgraded.  Access to the
internet is faster than on my machine at work.  We have a merriad of
software -- from shrink wrapped to home grown, some DOS too -- and it all
works rather well.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:53:12 -0400
From: RBall84213@aol.com
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: dial-in remote access

>I need to know what you people think is the best method of remote dial-in
>access to a NetWare 4.1 server. What do people think of products like
>WanderLink (by Funk Software) and Remote Access (by Shiva)? Also, could
>NetWare Connect serve this role as well, or is it used for something
>different? What I'd like to be able to do is attach a modem to the server to
>allow a remote client to dial-in and have their usual access to the LAN.

NetWare Connect using the PPPRNS protocol will enable your remote users
to log onto the network as normal network users.  Be sure to:

 1) Load the NW application programs (capture, login, logout, map, etc.)
    into the remote user's NWCLIENT subdirectory;

 2) Place subdirectory NWCLIENT in your remote PC's PATH statement;

 3) Create a separate "Remote" OU for remote users.  This OU includes
    the following (atypical) login script mapping:
	MAP INS ROOT S16:=SYS:PUBLIC
    This mapping ensures that NW applications will be found in NWCLIENT
    and not pulled over the phone wire;

 4) Load all required applications on the remote PC.  You want to limit
    phone line traffic to data, not applications software.

 5) Don't expect to run NetBEUI over NW Connect.  NW Connect
    only supports PPPRNS.  It converts packets to the Ethernet
    frame types at the server.

>I would also like to know if there's a way of using a remote modem through
>the LAN. For example, I'd be logged into the LAN through my computer (which
>doesn't have a modem) and have some way of using a modem which is in another
>computer (server or workstation) somewhere else on the same LAN. Is this
>possible?

NW Connect and the NCS service will allow you to access a server-mounted
modem from your network workstation.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 19:01:03 -0500
From: "Michael Disher" <doctord@MR.Net>
To: <netw4-l@bgu.edu>
Subject: Re: dial-in remote access

There are several methods of accomplishing this, depending on what your
goal is, and how much you want to spend, and the type of software you run.
For example,

You could just use an asynch gateway if all they want to do is attach and
pick up and send e-mail and miscellaneous groupware jobs.  This solution
will cost you about $400 for the gateway, about 50 per month for a phone
line (depending on where you live), and a little time configuring the
connections.

If you want to be able to connect yourself remotely to, say, manage the
network when you are on the road, you could set your computer up with
something like PC anywhere or some other remote control software, and call
in to your desk through a modem and then connect to the network that way.

Maybe you have a standard desktop that all the users see when they log in
to the network, and you want to have several people call in and access the
network just as though they were sitting at their desk and be able to do
everything that way.  In that case, I would suggest spending a bit of money
on a communications server that houses several pc's on a board, which are
loaded with all the standard network software.  With no one connected, you
should be able to attach to the network just as at your own desk, before
you even begin the remote configuration.  Then, install something like
Reachout Host on the machines in the comm server, and Reachout Viewer in
the remote computer, and allow them to dial in, enter a couple passwords
and "tada!" they are on the network.  The nice thing about this type of
connection, is that since all the processing is done on the computers in
the comm server, the only things that have to be transmitted accross the
wires are keystrokes and screen updates.  This means that the processes
will move quite a bit faster.  If you haven't ever tried to run login from
a remote machine, you don't know what I mean, but trust me, the way I
mentioned works great in comparison.

There are many other ways I'm sure, but these are some fairly simple
configurations that come to mind.

Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll try to answer them.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:51:14 -0400
From: Scott Wiersum <SWIERSUM@SETENV.COM>
Subject: Re: Netware Connect

NetWare Connect v2.0 is perfect for the application you're mentioning below.

I just bought it and it works great.  Here are some points:

- the modem connects to the file server's com port (COM1 or COM2).  If you
  want more modems, you have to buy a comm card with additional ports.
  (i.e. a DigiBoard)

- the UART (Universal Asynchronous Receive and Transmit) chip in your file
  server is very important--it's built into the com port.  Here are the
  max. baud rates with different UARTs:

     8250           -  9,600 baud
     8250a or 16450 - 19,200 baud
     16550A         - 38,400+

  To check your UART type, down the server and run MSD.  Hit "C" for Com
  ports and look at the UART Type line.  If you are using a 28.8k (or
  faster) modem, you'll have to specify a 38.4k port speed in the
  command line syntax of the the AIOCOMX.NLM (asynchronous I/O com
  port driver) like:

  load AIOCOMX MAXRATE=38400 PORT=3F8 INT=4 NODE=0 NAME=COM1

  ...otherwise the AIOCOMX driver will default to 19,200 which is a
  VERY BAD THING for modems with faster baud rates.  It causes the
  modem to connect at 19,200 instead of a faster rate... a pitiful waste.

- you can only use NASI-supported program in DOS

- you can use ALL programs in Windows by installing the NASI re-director
  which comes included in NetWare Connect 2... perfect for using Trumpet
  Winsock (or other dial-up program) to access the 'net.

- you must be running NetWare v3.12 or greater... sorry 3.11 folks.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:38:37 -0700
From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton@PRA.COM>
Subject: Frame Relay WAN Board -Reply

>I am going to be using MPR to connect an office to the
>internet.  Any reccomendations for a 128k Frame Relay board to use with a
>4.11 box running MPR?  I am looking at a T1 capable card, to offer
>simple scalability.
>
>ISDN is not available in all locations, so that's not an option
>either.

I have, and have used with great success, what used to be
the Newport Systems' LAN2LAN boards. Now, they are a
cisco product, but still highly recommended - and the easiest
router to configure I've ever seen...

------------------------------

