
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOV-NWIP.DOC - 19970226 - Email thread on NetWare IP (Internet Protocol)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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




Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:47:51 -0800
From: rgrein@halcyon.com (Randy Grein)
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware/IP

>I have a remote site running pure IP, and they want to stay that
>way.  Unfortunately they have to start connecting to a Netware Server
>over a WAN Link.  I am thinking of using Netware/IP on that server, so
>that they can find it.
>
>My first question is, Will this work?.

Sure does. NetWare IP (The 4.10 version is a free download from the
internet site and available on Compuserve, the 3.12 ver. is about $1800)
rips NCP, or NetWare Core Protocol out of IPX and places it into TCP
packets. You're moving from one routable protocol to another, so you
shouldn't have any problems. They even avoid well known ports and you have
the option to change ports used, but don't unless you know more about IP
than I do.

>Second, Novell told me that only the Novell IP stack (LAN WorkPlace
>for DOS) can be used to connect to a Netware/IP server.  We use FTP
>Onnet here.  Has any used another vendor's IP stack to connect to a
>Netware/IP server?

The product works with the ODI drivers. Instead of loading ipxodi.com, you
load tcpip.exe and and tcpncp shim. This pretty much limits you to Novell's
stack. ON the plus side, it does work with winsock, so you could probably
yank the bottom protocol stack you're using now and keep the apps.

>Third, Are there any other options?  Someone told me about an IPX to
>IP gateway, but I am not familiar with how that would work, or of any
>products that do this.

I was about to say "Sure; there's several options", but with your
configuration I don't think so. See, the way these things work the
workstation MUST use NCP to connect to the server. Whether it's on ipx or
tcp is just a transport issue. Your workstations aren't going to have
access to that without a Netware stack. The closest you could come is to
load NFS services on the NetWare server, and mount the volumes through a
unix box. VERY complicated and messy; much better to just let IPX on the
WAN.

If you don't mind my asking, why the trouble with multiple protocols? It's
not exactly like it's rocket science anymore, and with either NetWare IP or
better yet packet burst with NSLP all of the logical arguments against IPX
on the wan are gone. Of course, that doesn't address protocol religious
wars, but then I stay out of religious wars.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 20:45:52 -6
From: "Mike Avery" <mavery@aus.sig.net>
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: Re: Netware/IP

>I have a remote site running pure IP, and they want to stay that
>way.  Unfortunately they have to start connecting to a Netware Server
>over a WAN Link.  I am thinking of using Netware/IP on that server, so
>that they can find it.
>
>My first question is, Will this work?.

Yes.  And it will work quite well.  In a LAN environment, there will
be a 5 to 10% performance penalty compared to running the IPX VLM's,
but it will still be faster than using NETX by a considerable margin.
(Your mileage may vary.)

>Second, Novell told me that only the Novell IP stack (LAN WorkPlace
>for DOS) can be used to connect to a Netware/IP server.  We use FTP
>Onnet here.  Has any used another vendor's IP stack to connect to a
>Netware/IP server?

I have used no other stack.  And I am inclined to think that they are
correct.  The only other stack I know of that NWIP is supposed to
work with is Microsoft's Win95 IP driver.

The problem is that the interfaces between elements and programs in a
communications suite are not subject to any sort of industry
standards.  On the other hand, NWIP is free with NetWare 4.1,
including the client software.  While this does not include much in
the way of utilities, it is adequate for most purposes, and the
WinSock agent works quite well, so where the client software is
lacking, you can use WinSock compatible software.

>Third, Are there any other options?  Someone told me about an IPX to
>IP gateway, but I am not familiar with how that would work, or of any
>products that do this.

Well...I THINK you could put NWIP on two servers at opposite ends
of a router link.  Have the servers communicate through the routers
via NWIP over an IP link, and have the local nets use IPX.  The
servers are able to do the conversion.  I suspect that there are
other IP<->IPX gateways.  IP Tunneling protocol comes to mind as one
option.  (NWIP is basically a small step better than IP Tunnelling.)
Also, I think that FireFox's Novix product may do that as well.

A side benefit of using NWIP on the clients is that you are only
using one stack.  The setup is somewhat, but not much, simpler.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:17:46 -0500
From: fratus1@ncgroup.com (John Fratus (POP))
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: RE: Netware/IP

>I have a remote site running pure IP, and they want to stay that
>way.  Unfortunately they have to start connecting to a Netware Server
>over a WAN Link.  I am thinking of using Netware/IP on that server, so
>that they can find it.
>
>My first question is, Will this work?.
>
>Second, Novell told me that only the Novell IP stack (LAN WorkPlace
>for DOS) can be used to connect to a Netware/IP server.  We use FTP
>Onnet here.  Has any used another vendor's IP stack to connect to a
>Netware/IP server?
>
>Third, Are there any other options?  Someone told me about an IPX to
>IP gateway, but I am not familiar with how that would work, or of any
>products that do this.

I'd definitely stay away from running NWIP on workstations (at least until
the Client32 stuff is stable and probably not even then).

Why?

o You're stuck with Novell's real-mode (read: SLOW MEMORY HOGGING) IP stack
o There are compatibility and stability problems
o Support for the configuration is next to non-existent

That leaves you with two real options:

1.  If this is a true point-to-point situation, see if your routers will
encapsulate IPX into IP. Ciscos and Wellfleets will do it. I'm pretty sure
3Com will too. Don't know about any of the other guys. This is pretty fast
and lets you run IPX as normal on both the remote server and your
workstations. It's not particularly flexible though. I wouldn't try this on
a fully meshed 100-site WAN, for example.

2.  Run the NWIP server-side stuff on one server at your local site and on
a server at the remote site. Use the IPX-IP gateway functionality. The
servers will then talk IPX to workstations and IP to each other across the
WAN link. This isn't a bad solution, but requires pretty high powered
servers on both sides of the link to get any decent performance at all.

If this remote site doesn't want IPX on their _local_ net, make sure they
know about the need to switch IP stacks. This might sway them toward IPX at
little.

As someone else mentioned, the _best_ solution is to just run IPX. There
are _NO_ technical reasons not to. Simply political ones.

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:15:20 UT
From: Dave Kearns <DKearns@MSN.COM>
Subject: NetWare IP 2.2 files

The following files for updating NetWare IP to 2.2 have been released.
Look for them in:

     CompuServe-> db\ntid
     CompuServe-> lib\nwgen\02
     DTIU-> public\binary\unixconn\nwip22
     Internet-> binary\unixconn\nwip22
     NSE-> public\binary\unixconn\nwip22

Filename: nips22.exe
Size: 5959626
Document ID: 2905604
Title: NIPS22.EXE; NetWare/IP 2.2 Server Files
Abstract:
NIPS22.EXE upgrades the server's NetWare/IP to v2.2.  It is required for all
NetWare 4.10 sites that want to run IP.  To use NIPS22, you must also download
NIPW22.EXE.  NetWare/IP is a set of NetWare Loadable Modules (NLMs) and client
software that enables existing NetWare 3 and 4 servers to use TCP/IP or
Novell's IPX (or both) as their transport protocol. This flexibility allows
customers to deploy a total IP solution or a mixed IPX-IP solution in their
NetWare environment.  All existing NetWare services run unmodified with
NetWare/IP.

Filename: nipw22.exe
Abstract:
NIPW22.EXE contains the IP workstation files you must use if you have a
NetWare/IP 2.2 server.  In addition, it is strongly recommended if you apply
NIP318.EXE to your NetWare/IP 1.1 server.  This file includes software for
installing from server or from floppy images.

Filename: nwp951.exe
Title: DHCP and PPP Support for Client 32 for Win95
Abstract:
This NWIP95.NLM enhances NetWare/IP Client32 support for Windows 95, providing
full DHCP and PPP support.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:06:48 +0100
From: "David W. Hanson" <hansond@AFRC.GARMISCH.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Want to know more about Netware/IP

>I want to implement TCPIP protocol on a Netware 4 network and from this
>list I know the following software may help:
>    a) Netware/IP V2.2  and
>    b) NLMs that are bundled with NW4.1/IPX (e.g,TCPIP.NLM, SNMP.NLM,.)
>
>Questions:
>
>1. What is the method that a native NW4.1/IPX server used in
>   handling the IP packets when the TCPIP.NLM modules are loaded?

It acts as an IP router.

>   Can the NW4 server handle NATIVE/RAW IP packets once
>   the NLMs are loaded? or
>   It use some "IP encapulated within an IPX packet" method?

It will route IP in its native state.  NW/IP does encapsulation.

>2. Can NW4.1/IP V2.2 server handle IPX packets?
>   Can NW4.1/IP V2.2 server handle BOTH IP and IPX at the same time?

Yes and yes.

>3. If the clients PC have both VLM/NETx and TCPIP stack loaded,
>   What is the different (from the client side) between
>   a server running NW4.1/IPX with TCPIP NLMs loaded  and

The server is acting as an IP router.

>   a server running NW4.1/IP?

All IPX is encapsulated in IP datagrams.  You run different client
software in this case.

>   Can the PC clients use the file/print services from both
>   type of servers?

Yes.

>4. What is the best method to implement TCPIP over a existing IPX
>   networks?  (The most efficient that with least network packets)

It depends what you are trying to do.  If you are just trying to set
up Internet access, then you don't need NW/IP.  If you are trying to
eliminate IPX packets from your network, then you need NW/IP.  It
sounds like you don't really need NW/IP, you just need to set up your
server to route IP.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:25:29 -0000
From: Eric Hall <ehall@NWC.COM>
Subject: Re: NetWare/IP

>>>>You don't need, and do not want, to use IP to hook together two
>>>>NW servers across a Cisco router. Route IPX. NetWare does not
>>>>converse file server stuff via IP unless a) you tunnel IPX within IP
>>>>(not a >good thing to do) or b) you run NetWare/IP (not a good thing
>>>>to do either).
>>>>
>>>>SNMP is Simple Network Management Protocol and it does exactly
>>>>nothing about file movements etc. It does nothing for you and you can
>>>>ignore it completely.
>>>>
>>>>Since you've not described the rest of the environment I'll leave
>>>>my message incomplete at this point.
>>>>	Joe D.
>>
>>I'd appreciate you expanding on your Netware/IP comment, Joe...
>---------
>	NW/IP requires a standalone machine to act as IPX RIP/SAP converter
>etc; one more critical box to configure and keep happy and running. It also
>requires a TCP/IP stack be loaded on each client at all times; that's a memory
>consumer and an impediment if another TCP/IP stack is to be used. It forces
>the subnetting issue in circumstances where clients otherwise might not use IP
>on the client.
>	I think I've said this a couple times previously.
>	Notice that I have not said the product is broken or dinged or
>any such words. In fact, if it were I would have discussed the topic with
>one of the principal designers last week when we chatted, and with the other
>principal designer when we talked about it at initial product release time.
>It's fine so far as I am aware, but I have had no need to run it.
>	Joe D.

NWIP does NOT require IP on the client. You can do it if you want to,
but you do NOT have to.

NWIP does NOT require any additional subnetting of IP than you would
have in the first place. If you have a poorly-implemented topology, then
implementing any form of IP will cause promblems. NWIP does not enhance,
detract, or change any of that.

NWIP is more than happy running IP as a backbone protocol between
servers. At this point, you are still running IPX on your local LAN, and
only using NWIP as a backbone protocol. This is an EXCELLENT way to get
IPX off of your WAN (ie, lose the RIPs and SAPs).

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 13:24:31 +-100
From: Eric Hall <ehall@NWC.COM>
Subject: Re: BOOTP

You shouldn't use BOOTP. You'd go nuts trying to build a database of
1500 MAC and IP addresses. Use DHCP instead, which will allocate the
addresses from pools of addresses.

There are two DHCP servers for NetWare: ON's IPTrack and NetWare/IP 2.2.
IPTrack works pretty well, but isn't very flexible, and is fairly
expensive. NetWare/IP 2.2 works well too, and is free, but requires a
4.1 server.

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 12:05:21 EST
From: Jayson Agagnier <jaysona@PILS.COM>
Subject: Re[2]: Rconsole via IP

>>>How about and rconsole that can be used over IP?  Anybody ever see
>>>one of them?
>>
>>There is an nlm called xconsole that lets you get a remote console via
>>telnet.  It is available somewhere on netwire.novell.com .....
>
>No it is part of the Netware NFS or Netware FLEX IP products.

XCONSOLE comes with NetWare/IP 2.2, and can be donwloaded from
ftp://ftp.novell.com/pub/updates/unixconn/nwip22/nip22b.exe

It would also be a good idea to download NWIP22 client workstation
files too.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:48:41 +0100
From: Eric Hall <ehall@NWC.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell 3.12 and IP

>Will NW/ip work with 3.12?

Yes, ver 1.x of NetWare/IP is explicitly for 3.12. Note that 1.x is not
free like 2.x is.

>Are there technical reasons not to do this? The reason I want to do it
>is because IPX is so slow that it makes connecting to our one server
>painful and unuseable. It is also so "chatty" that it slows the entire
>network down for our primary application (a library circulation
>system that runs over tcp/ip). Right now we are only giving access to the
>Novell server within our Service Center. I'd like to use the Novell
>backup system to backup workstations in our library branches and to be
>able to distribute software updates from the Novell server.

The topology you describe below won't support doing backups over the WAN.

>Our WAN covers 5 mostly rural counties in Southwest Washington State.
>Most of our WAN connections use 56K frame relay, but we have four branch
>libraries that are in areas without frame relay. These branches are
>connected using 14.4 asynch modems. We are planning on upgrading to 28.8
>modems, but other than that we won't be able to upgrade to faster network
>connections.

NetWare/IP will help you cut your SAP and RIP traffic down to almost
nothing which would be a big benefit to you in this kind of highly meshed
topology. You'd probably notice a 10-15% improvement over raw IPX on the
WAN.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 18:35:08 +0000
From: Michael Gaskin <tk421@CYBERGATE.COM>
Subject: Re: NOVELL Digest - 22 May 1996

>What is the easiest way to use DHCP on my workstations. I was hoping for
>a DHCP.NLM to give out the addresses. Does NW/IP have this feature?
>Seems Win95 workstations only use WINS and DHCP, no bootp.

I have the DHCP server running on one of my Netware 4.1 servers.  Works
great. You can get it by downloading Netware/IP 2.2.  You don't have
to use the other parts of Netware/IP if you don't want to.

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 17:40:09 +0100
From: Eric Hall <ehall@NWC.COM>
Subject: Re: DHCP software

>I want to get DHCP managing my internetwork IP's. I read a review in
>this month's Network Computing which compares various offerings. The
>article mentioned that DHCP from Novell is available free for
>download as part of Netware/IP. I can't find it at either Netlab2 or
>Novell. Can someone steer me in the right direction (host/directory)?

ftp.novell.com/pub/unixconn/

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 19:09:15 +0100
From: Eric Hall <ehall@NWC.COM>
Subject: Re: WIN95 with BOOTP/DHCP -Reply

>Can NWIP work in 3.12, because I heard it works in 4.1 only.  Also, is
>it a DHCP/BOOTP mixed host??

NetWare/IP is a protocol converter. It takes IPX on a local LAN segment,
converts it into IP (SAPs, RIPs, and all), and moves it off to another
segment, which then deconverts it back into IPX. NetWare/IP servers are
available for 3.12 and 4.10. Use NetWare/IP 1.1 for 3.12, and NetWare/IP
2.x for 4.10.

NetWare/IP 2.2 also has an addtional DHCP/BOOTP server, which will
happily run on NetWare 3.12 servers.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:38:57 +0100
From: "David W. Hanson" <hansond@AFRC.GARMISCH.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Netware/IP

>Netware/IP came with our copy of Netware 4.1.  Exactly what does this
>package do.

NetWare/IP is used to allow NetWare servers to communicate with
workstations and other NetWare servers over IP-only links.  In other
words, you use it to eliminate IPX on your network or to run over
networks where IPX is prohibited.

NetWare/IP is not necessary in order to run IP on your LAN.  This can
be accomplished via the normal TCPIP.NLM.

NetWare/IP -is- necessary if you need to communicate with a NetWare
file server over a network that does not allow IPX.

>Our LAN is one of many attached to our IBM Mainframe. Currently each
>LAN is acting independently.  Most users use the mainframe only for
>Email and related Office Vision Functions (Calendars etc). Access to
>the mainfram is either by TN3270 or Winsock.  Would use of Netware/IP
>"Buy" me anything?

No, you would still be using TN3270 or Winsock to connect to the
mainframe via IP.  NetWare/IP isn't necessary to do this.  Not to
say that you wouldn't be "buying" some other features, but your
IP connection to the mainframe would probably work exactly as it does
now.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 08:24:05 +0200
From: Henno Keers <Mailbox@ICE.NL>
Subject: Re: Why is NW/IP better?

>I'm trying to understand but with little luck - In what
>circumstances will NW/IP be better than plain NW4? Probably if the
>wiring is not LAN, or will not accept IPX for some reason. But what we
>have a PC LAN segment inside an IP Unix LAN? Naturally, all PCs run
>TCP/IP (to access the UNIXs). Will it do any good to move to NW/IP?

Some pro's and con's: (NW/IP versus IPX)
Pro NW/IP:
-   Gives you only one protocol on the wire
-   Keep your local IP fetists happy
-   Does better over slow WAN links (pure IP, NW/IP isn't that pretty)

Con NW/IP:
-   You need to keep a IP number administration
-   Overhead on the client side is much larger (memory footprint)
-   (I think) that the DSS server layout is a headache
-   It will be slower

Pro IPX:
-   Fast
-   Small overhead on clients
-   Easy to administer, only a network and server number-plan is
    needed.

Con IPX:
-   On WAN's you need to employ filtering on it's routing protocol,
    RIP/SAP.
-   You have to tweek LIP and packet-burst

Besides that, IPX and IP live lovely beside eachother, especially
when running only 1 ethernet frame (Ethernet_II) for all traffic, and
employing a IP derived IPX numbering scheme (Utah standard).

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:39:33 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: NW SPX versus NW/IP

>My boss claims that Novell plans eventually to junk IPX in favor
>of TCP/IP.   I think that TCP/IP has its place, but that it's too
>inefficient and inherently insecure to replace IPX in a LAN
>environment.
-----------
	It really doesn't matter much what we think, provided no one creates
a huge uproar.
	Like many rumors, folks substitute absolute or the wrong adjectives
in their descriptions. Try it again without them. Such as "Novell plans to
support NCP (NetWare core protocol) over TCP/IP." Of course they have done
this to a degree already with NW/IP.
	Going on to the next sentence, "it's too inefficient and inherently
insecure..."  Efficiency? I have no idea where you are coming up with that,
but maybe we can guess. TCP/IP is a nice plump protocol stack, the majority
of which is devoted to TCP connection oriented activities. The UDP part is
tiny, and is devoted to datagram oriented activities. IPX is uses datagrams,
and hence the analogue is UDP/IP.
	Throughput, which I presume you equate to efficiency, can be higher
with UDP than TCP provided no packets are lost, and the throughput of NCP/IPX
can be slightly higher than UDP/IP if the TCP/IP stack contains significant
routing code, else they perform about the same. IPX and UDP throughput goes
down the drain upon packet loss, but that of TCP does not. Novell's nearest
equivalent to TCP is SPX and some of us regard SPX as a lost cause.
	Now I happen to be an advocate for using TCP to carry file sharing
traffic rather than UDP because UDP is stupid and TCP is smart about network
congestion and packet loss. But of course that's just my set of biases, a
set which I expose to a few Novell troops who aren't running away fast enough.
	Security is what we make of it. If you have an Internet connection
and blithely let in any outside traffic then of course you will be taken
to the cleaners fairly quickly unless some elementary security is imposed
on TCP/IP speaking machines. What Novell plans in this area has not been
discussed publically, so far as I am aware, but we all know that Novell is
highly concious of network security (contrast with Redmond Washington outfit).
I'm in the position of dealing with a large number of NW servers via IPX,
some local most remote and out of local control. The same issues of security
apply though details differ.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:57:39 -0700
From: Sunia Yang <sunia@NETWORKING.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: NWIP problem

>I have big problem with NWIP 2.2b. At start server write message:
>"NetDB unable to login as UNIX Services Handler.
>Regenerate UNIX Service Handler by enteringat the console load unicon
>/l nfs."
>
>At work server generated in directory sys:etc\tmp thousand deleted
>files.
>I haven't in DS for this server user Unix service handler and don't
>know how regenerate connect NWIP to DS.

Have you tried the fix recommended to you "load unicon /1 nfs"? It sounds
like the UNIX service handler was deleted out of the tree.

The thousands of sys:etc\tmp\temp.000 files is a bug.  There is no fix
currently but there is a workaround:  flag directory sys:etc\tmp for
immediate purge.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:59:18 -0400
From: Andy Wyman <awyman@MAIL.HUSKYINC.COM>
Subject: Re[2]: Connecting to server by IP

>If I have NWIP 2.2 setup on the server, what files do I need on the
>workstation to connect through IP??  It does not seem that Client32 has
>this option.  I want to drop IPX at some time, but the hundreds of
>different files at support.novell.com are wicked to wade through.  Which
>client will work with JUST IP??

I have NWIP 2.2 and Win95 stations running over IP.  What you need
to do in the Network Control Panel, select
Add:Protocol:Novell:Netware/IP.  Do not delete IPX (actually, you
can't without deleting the client) as Netware/IP is another layer
between IPX and the Network.  After that is added, go into the
Netware/IP properties and select your NWIP server and DSS
addresses.  If memory serves, you will also need to manually select
Microsoft's TCP/IP stack and  configure it as well.  To make all of
this work properly, you will need the patches to Client32 for
Windows95 installed (c3295D, I think was the name of it).
Documentation was quite sparse on implementing this, and it took
quite a bit of tweaking before it worked right...one key thing to
watch for is to make sure that both IPX-32 and IPX compatible
protocols are both set to "Auto" frame type, otherwise, it will not
work right.  Hope this solves your problem.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:36:12 -0000
From: John Bazeley <johnb@JSB.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Novell TCP/IP and Resolv.cfg

>I have installed TCP/IP for the first time on a Novell 4.1 server and can not
>seem to get it to use DNS.  I have a resolv.cfg in the sys:\etc directory
>(along with a minimal hosts file).  However when I load the GroupWise
>SMTP NLM (the only thing I have so far that uses DNS from within the
>server) it can not resolve any names. <snip>
>
>I am finding that there is a dearth of information about DNS with Novell's
>TCP/IP on their 4.1 servers.

This is indeed true!

> Can anyone give me any hints as to what might be wrong?

1) make sure netdb.nlm is loaded. This is Novell's DNS client,
   and if it's not loaded DNS isn't there. I'm not familiar
   with GroupWise, but it may do a check on startup to see if
   netdb is there and if it isn't, it may fall back to the
   /etc/hosts way of doing things.

2) make sure resolv.cfg has the correct format e.g.
   domain jsb.co.uk
   nameserver 193.129.109.20

3) Don't be tempted to put an 'e' on the end of resolv.cfg.
   This is Unix stuff, land of the famous creat() call.

4) Certain apps get moody when the gethostname() call fails. I've
   seen this happen on most of our servers, and my cure is to
   add a line to /etc/hosts for your local host (i.e. the file
   server itself) like:
   193.129.109.109   stimpy    teks9.jsb.co.uk

---------

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:55:36 -0800
From: Floyd Maxwell <floyd@DIRECT.CA>
Subject: Re: Novell TCP/IP and Resolv.cfg

>I have installed TCP/IP for the first time on a Novell 4.1 server and
>can not seem to get it to use DNS.  I have a resolv.cfg in the sys:\etc
>directory (along with a minimal hosts file).  However when I load the
>GroupWise SMTP NLM (the only thing I have so far that uses DNS from
>within the server) it can not resolve any names. <snip>
>
>I am finding that there is a dearth of information about DNS with
>Novell's TCP/IP on their 4.1 servers.

I STRONGLY agree.

Novell's DNS documentation is the biggest waste of paper I have
ever seen...how to spend pages and pages saying nothing useful
about DNS.  The only thing worse is the "interface" __required__
to set up the DNS. Disgusting. Certainly worth what we paid...ZIP.

We didn't want to go the Unix DNS route because we wanted to
understand and be able to easily maintain the result.  NT was
out because it is always out.

...so we went DOS!  And love it.

FTP Software makes PC/Bind.  Get it, relish the excellent docs,
install it, forget about it.  QED.

NB: We gave it a dedicated machine (and one pretty much has to
as it is a DOS product), which some may object to, but from
what I have heard and read, DNS can be a bit of a performance
pig [one article I read, possibly in Network Computing recently,
described a company trying to move from Unix machines to NT machines.
They ended up leaving the DNS on the Unix box for performance
reasons...NT wasn't up to the job!!!]...and "NW/IP just for DNS"
(our Plan A) forced us to double the RAM on one server just to get
all the NLMs to run (and "bit" very badly).  So we prefer lightly
loaded servers each doing a job well (other obvious examples being
MPR & Arcserve 6)...and things are "humming" as we speak...now
where's that piece of wood...

---------

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:34:59 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Novell TCP/IP and Resolv.cfg

>I have installed TCP/IP for the first time on a Novell 4.1 server and
>can not seem to get it to use DNS.  I have a resolv.cfg in the sys:\etc
>directory (along with a minimal hosts file).  However when I load the
>GroupWise SMTP NLM (the only thing I have so far that uses DNS from
>within the server) it can not resolve any names. <snip>
>
>I am finding that there is a dearth of information about DNS with
>Novell's TCP/IP on their 4.1 servers.
------------

\etc\hosts
# "IP Address", "Hostname"
129.123.1.74 netlab3 netlab3.usu.edu

\etc\resolv.cfg
domain usu.edu
nameserver 129.123.1.2
nameserver 129.123.1.7
nameserver 129.123.1.9

	This is for NW 4.11. I do NOT use, nor ever want, a DNS operation
on my NetWare equipment. My site has real, proper, full, DNS servers which
are big Sun machines, both on campus and the required off campus fallbacks.
They get beaten upon hard. For a large site NetWare based DNS is totally
unsuitable. For a small site it might be acceptable.
	DNS machines must be up 100% of the time, period. And they must be
duplicated off site as well. And they must respond very quickly. This is to
handle requests from outside. The greater the traffic load, and the longer
the tables, the more work must be done looking up name/number translations.
Mail is a heavy user of such lookups. Such activities are in direct
competition with file caching and other intensive work.
	The two tables shown above are present to support DHCP and web
server work.
	The prime reference for DNS work is the O'Reilly book "DNS and
BIND." BIND is a Berkeley-originated program; it changes a lot; it is far
from simple to maintain. DNS itself is not simple, but it is conquerable
with work. The whole matter of maintaining a DNS "system" (must have more
than one server) requires skill and significant manager time.
	The message is avoid becoming involved with DNS if you can. Leave
that job to others and to suitable equipment.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 15:45:39 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: TCP/IP

	I have had no occasion to touch NW/IP as such so there are plenty
of unknowns there for me too. I had background discussions with the planners
way back in the definition stage, and my position was to go for it over TCP
rather than UDP, but that did not succeed (and they will be sorry). I've
hit them again with the same story recently.
	The major problem with installation of NW/IP, I believe, is setting
up the DSS item. Since I have no need for such baggage I have ignored it.
Thus I can't say whether INW "still has as many problems as older NW/IP."
I can say this much very privately: I recommend you not run ftpserv.nlm at
this time because it has many serious problems. Novell has been told about
them in detail and the word is really into the company.
	DHCP works fine here, but watch out for dynamic IP assignments going
poof if the client turns them back in. This item may have been fixed since
my last test of this kind. I use DHCP in production mode here, with static
IP numbers.
	Joe D.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:30
From: supervis@gtlcmh.usa.com ("Bodjack, Bruce")
To: netw4-l@bgu.edu
Subject: NWIP (no way I pay)

Anyone have a document that can help me decipher a NWIP install.  Novell
does a wonderful job of publishing  "The complete NetWare /IP support
Services Planning Worksheet", and I have good examples, but the labels
don't match the fields in NWIPCFG.NLM and UNICON.NLM. It would also be
nice to find a step by step flow chart or diagram for this install,
knowing some configurations must occur before others, but which ones?

Did you know? UNICON will lock up if you specify a "Server Name" it
doesn't recognize, I have mastered this lockup technique.  Simple
solution JUST REBOOT THE SERVER. It would seem that  if you do make a
change in UNICON or NWIPCFG, you have to down the server before the
changes take place, just like NT bindings.

My dream: The DNS and DSS could not be simpler, just one of each on the
same server, as an intranet.  I'm not asking it to do anything fancy.
Once this is accomplished I want to add an address so it can find the NT
web server that is in development.  Perhaps you are thinking this is
foolish, I should do my DNS and DSS on the NT, OK but I still have to use
NWIPCFG and UNICON to address the NT web. Right?

Funny thing I have a Novell Web server running and a Client using
Netscape with IPX/IP gateway, and no problem connecting.  NWIP apparently
is unnecessary in this configuration, but the NT web and the Novell Web
can not communicate with each other, hence the need for NWIP, or should I
say the clients on each side can not see the other's intranet web severe.

I do believe (who doesn't) that I have the latest 4.11 patches
installed.  The installed NWIP is 2.2c.

---------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:15:41 -0600
From: "Mike Avery" <mavery@mail.otherwhen.com>
To: netw4-l@ecnet.net
Subject: Re: NWIP (no way I pay)

I haven't used the 4.11 NWIP, but the 4.10 version was fairly easy to
install.  Things could have changed in the interim.

Also changes through Unicon, and changes to the DNS tables took
effect at once.  No need to down the server, unload and reload NLM's.

Looking at your commentary, it's not clear to me why you need or want NWIP.

NWIP allows NetWare clients to use IP to connect to NetWare file
servers.  If your clients can see one web server but not another,
NWIP won't address that.  NWIP isn't necessary to let one web server
see another either.

Unless you have topology purists on site, there is little reason to
move to NWIP.  It isn't a pure IP implementation, it's one step
beyond tunnelling, a pure IP implementation is coming "real soon
now" according to Novell.  NWIP is, based on my tests, about 10%
slower than IPX using the same generation drivers, so there are
reasons not to use NWIP.

As to multiple DNS and DSS's, the reason for them is redundancy and
the ability to keep running even if the main DNS or DSS fail.  For
DNS's, I suggest a single master DNS with a secondary or caching DNS
on site, then have two additional secondary DNS's at each site you
manage.  You may want more or less than that, depending on how large
your sites are and what your budget looks like.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:27:10 -0600
From: "Mike Avery" <mavery@mail.otherwhen.com>
To: netw4-l@ecnet.net
Subject: Re: Netware DNS

>Does anyone know where I can get hold of the Netware DNS
>implementation?  I've had a look round support.novell.com but can't
>find it.  What should I be looking for?  I've got the DHCP server -
>works like a dream!  I'd like to put DNS on as well so I can scrap a
>Unix box (well, re-deploy!)

It's in the NWIP package.  It requires NetWare 4.10 or later.

And.... it's not as stable as you might hope.  We found that changing
information in the tables could cause the server to abend.  This
problem decreased when we got up to date on the patches, but never
QUITE went away.  (Two notes - it's been about 6 months since
I played with that, so things could have improved in the interim.
Also, the employer I was with at the time moved the primary DNS to
a HP Unix box and runs the DNS on the NetWare servers as a
secondary DNS.)

My suggestion is to put dhcp and dns on a 2 user license machine
along with your backup product (especially if you use arcserve to
backup a number of servers).

Also, have a secondary DNS that gets its information from the first -
that way if the first one abends, your users can keep running until
the primary dns is back on line.  The secondary can be any 4.X
server as running DNS didn't seem to cause problems.

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

