OK, well, here is one solid negative for the IPX world... Are there are there
any real studies that compare the actual protocols and their respective
overheads... I would be real interested in this since I am in the process of
trying to kill of NOVELL from my entire site... (Gimmee back my bullets - Lynard
Skynard) SO if you have any real numbers please send them to me... I will
summarize.
Todd
tglassey @
eprinet .
epri .
com
Electric Power Research Institute
IT - Network Services
Palo Alto California
(415) 855-7973
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: SMTP.PAUL on Thu, Nov 3, 1994 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: IPX, and packet flooding.
To: "J. Adams" <jna @
concorde .
com>; Glassey, Todd @
ITD Mail Center #2286
Cc: firewalls @
GreatCircle .
COM
Received: from RELAY3.UU.NET by SSW.EPRI.COM
(Soft*Switch Central V4L380P6);
03 Nov 1994 20:42:18 PST
Received: from miles.greatcircle.com by relay3.UU.NET with ESMTP
id QQxona12222; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 23:40:50 -0500
Received: (daemon @
localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-941015-1) id
MAA12976 for firewalls-outgoing; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:52:17 -0800
Received: from hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (hawksbill.sprintmrn.com [199.11.1.3]) by
miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-941015-1) with SMTP id MAA12946 for
<firewalls @
GreatCircle .
COM>; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:49:44 -0800
Received: by hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (5.65/1.34)
id AA28408; Thu, 3 Nov 94 15:47:25 -0500
From: paul @
hawksbill .
sprintmrn .
com (Paul Ferguson)
Message-Id: <9411032047 .
AA28408 @
hawksbill .
sprintmrn .
com>
Subject: Re: IPX, and packet flooding.
To: jna @
concorde .
com (J. Adams)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 15:47:25 -0500 (EST)
Cc: firewalls @
GreatCircle .
COM
In-Reply-To: <9411031813 .
AA27490 @
oracle .
concorde .
com> from "J. Adams" at Nov 3,
94 01:13:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 895
Sender: firewalls-owner @
GreatCircle .
COM
Precedence: bulk
>
>
> Speaking of IPX, IPX seems to transmit TONS of useless ack and frag
> packets, nearly all the time. Anyone have any idea what's behind this?
> Or is it just sloppy novell code? We
> always see a high network load on our PC segments, but the unix boxes
> which are obviously more powerful and doing more for our net (gopher,www,
> mail,etc...) work at much lower loads.
>
> -john
>
Its a protocol thing. IPX is a pig-dog, resource-sucking protocol.
IP is simply cleaner and doesn't rely on any silly service advertisements
for services.
Whats the difference betwen an apple and a grapefruit?
- paul
_______________________________________________________________________________
Paul Ferguson
US Sprint
Managed Network Engineering tel: 703.689.6828
Reston, Virginia USA internet: paul @
hawk .
sprintmrn .
com
|
|
