Subject: [netatalk-admins] ...

From: James Chelin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:45:52 -0700

I am running Netatalk 1.4b2 with FREEBSD 2.2.2, and everything works
fine on some computers but on others it doesn't show up at all..  My
EtherTalk zone is between 200 - 500.  We have a Quadra 700 Macintosh File
Server/Router on the network..  If I turn it off, all the macs can see the
Netatalk machine no problem, if I have it on, only like 40% can see it.. ???
I cant figure it out...   when I start atalkd I get this...

atalkd[162]: route: 100 -> 200.108: No such process
atalkd[162]: route: 100 -> 200.108: Network is unreachable

When I run nbplkup it turns out that 200.108 is the Quadra 700
Server/Router..  also when I run nbplkup I can see Every Mac on the network,
even the ones that cant see Netatalk...   can someone help?

thanks,

James

---

From: Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:22:38 -0700 (PDT)

> EtherTalk zone is between 200 - 500.  We have a Quadra 700 Macintosh File
                            ^^^^^^^^^
Slight nit. Your Ethertalk zone is not from 200 to 500, your netrange is.
Zones are seperate. You can have multiple zones on a phase 2 net (on a
physical wire), and you can have the same zone name show up on multiple
wires. Our building Ethernet has 7 zones, three of which also have
attached LocalTalk areas. So each of those zones map to two netranges.

Why do you have this setup? Do you really have 253*301 > 76,000
computers??? Make the net range from 200 to maybe 201. We have a building
w/ about 150 macs, and it all fits in one net number (15107-15107). 

> even the ones that cant see Netatalk...   can someone help?

It sounds like the server is acting like a router. Double check that, and
make sure that it's idea of the network agrees with netatalk's.

Take care,

Bill

---

From: Julian Elischer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:50:29 -0700

> even the ones that cant see Netatalk...   can someone help?

this bug was supposed to be fixed by a patch I added to freeBSD recently

I've heard reports however thatit's broken something else.
I hope to have checked this later today

julian

---

From: Patrik Schindler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:18:50 +0200

Hi, Bill,

>computers???

Why should he not do this? I've here a netrange from 13-20 and only 5 Ethertalk devices. If there's no good reason (internic, government, top level admin or similar) for using as less as possible numbers, why may not everyone use as much as (s)he wants?
I think it's is only a cosmetic question and in almost all cases not responsible for malfunctions.

:wq! PoC

---

From: Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:50:26 -0700 (PDT)

> I think it's is only a cosmetic question and in almost all cases not responsible for malfunctions.

I'm sorry. I meant to look up the multicast stuff last night, but forgot.

The main reason for keeping your net small is for kernel efficiency.
There's more overhead w/ more nets. Specifically the routing needs go up.
Also, I'm not sure if the multicasting needs go up (it's been a while
since I looked at that part of the code).

We've been at this thread so long, I've forgotten if this is Linux or BSD.
I know that the *BSD kernels use a tree, keyed on bits in the desired
node, to keep track of the routes. So for a range of 200-500, you'd have
the following routes:

200->207   8 nets
208->223  16
224->255  32
256->383 128
384->447  64
448->479  32
480->495  16
496->499   4
500->500   1

I don't see how that's nicer, if you don't have the computers to need the
space.

I'm not sure how Linux does it, but I've seen mention of "too many routes"
errors in Linux faq's, so I gather it's better to go sparingly with the
routes.

You're right that it will work with this large range, but I think the
general operation of things will be a little less efficient.

Take care,

Bill