Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site log-hb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
From: hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson)
Newsgroups: net.lan
Subject: Re: mixing 3com and Interlan boards?
Message-ID: <235@log-hb.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 07:35:28 EST
Article-I.D.: log-hb.235
Posted: Wed Jan 16 07:35:28 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 01:34:24 EST
References: <356@spp2.UUCP> <231@log-hb.UUCP> <412@mcvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson)
Distribution: net
Organization: TeleLOGIC Nyn{shamn SWEDEN
Lines: 20
Summary: 

In article <412@mcvax.UUCP> jim@mcvax.UUCP (Jim McKie) writes:
>Writing this on a net which consists of DEUNA, Interlan and 3Com interfaces,
>with one of the 3Com boards connected with an Interlan NT100 transceiver, and
>the Interlan NI1010A with a 3Com transceiver, I would say you are not entirely
>correct.
.....
>What is confusing to us (and the reason the transceivers are swapped) is that
>the NI1010A won't work with the NT100 transceiver. Interlan is also wondering...
Sounds decidedly nasty... Some ( vicarious ) experience from around here
indicates that my original statement should be correct as of today, but
there has been problems with the NT100-s, simply dying on people.
Supposedly this is fixed now ( and Interlan supposedly got the people
mentioned above out of their fix within a few hours, no shadow on those
worthies ), but obviously I'll have to tread easy with my upcoming
installation of just that, NI1010 vs. 3com... 


-- 
Hans Albertsson, USENET/uucp: {decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
Real World:  TeleLOGIC AB, Box 1001, S-14901 Nynashamn,SWEDEN