[c-nsp] Appletalk (don't laugh) through Cisco switch

[Russ LaPlante]

The primary benefit (in my mind) of using the extended range on the
router is that you encourage the nodes to use AT Phase 2, which less
"chatty", as AT is often accused of being. There are other benefits,
but this is the one that stands out in my memory.

- Russ


On 7/15/05, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> 
> In Apple parlance they called that a "seed" router, and you don't
> need to use a router, you can use a Netware server running Appleyack,
> or a UNIX box running netatalk.
> 
> I think the 128 limit is Appleyack Phase 1, I think Phase 2 solved
> that.
> 
> Ted
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> >[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Church, Chuck
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 4:59 PM
> >To: Jeff Kell; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Appletalk (don't laugh) through Cisco switch
> >
> >
> >Jeff,
> >
> >       I ran into a similar issue a few years ago.  From what I could
> >tell, Macs and Appletalk-speaking HP jetdirects couldn't all agree on
> >either the Appletalk zone, or the cable number.  All devices were on the
> >same VLAN, but it spanned over 6 different switches.  I'm speculating
> >that a client coming up possibly didn't see other clients on the network
> >(maybe due to VLAN pruning??), and picked it's own.  When I threw a
> >Appletalk speaking router on the network, all issues went away.  Any
> >Cisco router will work.  Keep in mind, you only need to enable appletalk
> >on the one interface attached to this VLAN.  Make sure your cable-range
> >is big enough to support all clients (if I remember right, a single
> >cable number can support 128 devices).  HTH.
> >
> >
> >Chuck Church
> >Lead Design Engineer
> >CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
> >Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation Team
> >1210 N. Parker Rd.
> >Greenville, SC 29609
> >Home office: 864-335-9473
> >Cell: 703-819-3495
> >cchurch at netcogov.com
> >PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> >[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Kell
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:47 PM
> >To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Appletalk (don't laugh) through Cisco switch
> >
> >Jeff Kell wrote:
> >
> >> "We have researched this problem and discovered that there is a known
> >> issue with running AppleTalk through a Managed CISCO Switch."
> >
> >To answer some replies already received, and to clarify the original
> >situation...
> >
> >> Are all the Mac's on the same Vlan on that switch?
> >
> >Yes.  It is an old 8Mb 2924-XL actually now (the 3550 was just the
> >uplink), we tried a 2950 with same result, and "downgraded" to the
> >2924XL to see if it helped).  The ports in question are all on vlan192.
> >
> >> Apple computers come up on the network card very fast.. And I found
> >> that I had to enable portfast on every port...
> >
> >We do that religiously on host ports (portfast).  Configuration of the
> >ports is simply:
> >
> >> interface FastEthernet0/xx switchport access vlan 192 spanning-tree
> >> portfast
> >
> >We do have some subnets in the core routing Appletalk, just not to this
> >particular building, and have never had issues before.  Been doing this
> >long time no problems.
> >
> >
> >> Jim is right about the portfast.  That has caused me a lot of grief,
> >> especially in labs where netboot is used a lot.
> >
> >We have a G5 server netbooting two labs across subnets.  Not afraid of
> >Appletalk :-)
> >
> >> Older Novell clients (using IP) did the same thing...portfast worked
> >> like a charm.
> >
> >We have legacy Novell over IPX, and new Netware Client32 over IP.  No
> >problems there either.
> >
> >Which leaves me with the question, what can this application possibly be
> >
> >doing Appletalk-ish that wouldn't work on a plain old layer2 2924XL?
> >And note that their recommended "solution" is to use a non-managed
> >switch (they did not say "hub" which I might have bought into being
> >somehow different).
> >
> >Jeff
> >_______________________________________________
> >cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>