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