Subject: [netatalk-admins] Re: Problems w/ FreeBSD 3.1 as seeding router?
From: Stefan Bethke (stefan.bethke@hanse.de)
Date: Fri May 07 1999 - 13:30:37 EDT
"Douglas E. Wegscheid" <wegscd@whirlpool.com> wrote:
>> Most definitly not. I've run 2.2.8, 3.1 and -current in both router-less
>> and networks with routers, and as far as I can tell, it works.
>
> What does your atalkd.conf look like in a routerless environment? If I
> have no other routers, do I need to put -router in atalkd.conf? Craig
> Summerhill just told me about -router (and I see it furthur down in this
> note); it's in the source, but I can't find any reference to it in any
> docs or FAQs (I am a new subscriber to this list, I understand it has
> been discussed recently, but I can't find a list archive for 1999).
>
> would
>
> le0 -router -phase 2 -net 100-100 -address 100.1 -zone Foobar
>
> be right?
Yes.
>>> 2) Have I possibly overlooked something I need to do to my 7.5.3 and
>>> 7.5.5 Macs to get them to talk phase 2?
>>
>> No. Phase 1 is dead for quite some years now. AFAIR, 7.5 needs OT (or at
>> least defaults to it), and OT doesn't do Phase 1.
>
> 7.5 still has the 'classic' Appletalk option. I need Appletalk; I have
> some 7.0.1 on some old boxes, and hope to use the LocalTalk bridge that
> Apple has for download to get to Macipgw after I get atalkd configured
> correctly... Cheap browsers.
"Classic Networking" vs. "OpenTransport" is ortogonal to "EtherTalk Phase
I" vs. "EtherTalk Phase II". Please forget about "Phase I," it doesn't
exist anymore.
Note that this has *nothing* to do with LocalTalk. (But see note below,
fellow Linux readers...)
>>> 3) Blew away /usr/local/etc/atalkd.conf. Shut down. Turn every Mac in
>>> the house off. Power up. Netatalk starts, comes up with address
>>> 65280.something.
>>
>> That's correct if you don't have a router on the network.
>
> Should it show up in the choosers then?
Yes.
>> No, but a router needs to route somewhere. You'll either have to use the
>> -router trick, or set up a (real or dummy) interface to route to. I
>> believe disc can be used for that. Then, I've never tried, and it might
>> well be that disc doesn't support AppleTalk. I'll try over the weekend.
>
> what is 'disc'? I see that the atalkd does set up an interface the lo0,
> does that suffice?
disc is the discard network interface you can optionally add to your
kernel. It's like the /dev/null of network interfaces.
The main point in being an AppleTalk router is to announce routes via RTMP.
However, and that is the problem with Adrian's hack, some AppleTalk
implementations choke on empty RTMP packets (which aren't really illegal,
but what is the point in sending out packets announcing zero routes?)
The best (read: most interoperable) way is to add a second interface to
your machine, and let netatalk route between that and your Ethernet. It
doesn't matter that there's nothing connected to the dummy interface, it is
just there so atalkd has something to put into the RTMP packets it sends
out on the Ethernet.
Try the -router trick. It seems to work with most equipment, and I guess
that even Classic Networking will work with it.
As for LocalTalk and Phase I: there is/were a driver for the old
Apple/Farallon LocalTalk/PC card for Linux. This driver pretends to be an
Ethernet interface (the author cut short on implementing a complete new
hardware scheme), and needs Phase I support in order to work.
Incidentially, EtherTalk Phase I and LocalTalk packets share the same
structure, which is called a "non-extended network" in Inside AppleTalk,
2nd ed.
Stefan
-- Stefan Bethke Muehlendamm 12 Phone: +49-40-256848, +49-177-3504009 D-22087 Hamburg <stefan.bethke@hanse.de> Hamburg, Germany <stb@freebsd.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:41 EST