Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!agate!saturn!eshop From: eshop@saturn.ucsc.edu (Jim Warner) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: KSTAR and atalkad, atis. Message-ID: <5642@saturn.ucsc.edu> Date: 6 Dec 88 00:10:39 GMT References: <5566@saturn.ucsc.edu> <673@kinetics.UUCP> Reply-To: eshop@saturn.ucsc.edu (Jim Warner) Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 28 In article <673@kinetics.UUCP> minshall@kinetics.UUCP (Greg Minshall) writes: >1. Brad Smith at UCSC is having trouble getting K-STAR to talk with >CAP on a Unix host. My main suggestion here is to make sure that >CAP is using the "old-style" UDP port numbers (in the 768-range) >rather than the "new-style, officially blessed" port numbers >(in the 200-range), as the current K-STAR does not support the >new-style port numbers. This really isn't a question of "style" as much as whether a company has a commitment to track development of standards. Please call technical support (yours) and explain port numbers to them. I called with this very question (UDP port numbers) before your posting and Kinetics Tech support thought I was asking which connector to use on the back. Another topic-- The "FastPath Addendum" (P/N 4230394 Rev A) shipped with our new FP4s contains dangerous advice. You recommend (page 20-21) that it is OK to choose any (unassigned) address for use on a localtalk net. Today's unassigned address will be assigned to a site some day. Suggestions like this plant black hole time bombs throughout the internet, set to go off long after anyone remembers this little hack. I really don't think a responsible networking company would make this suggestion. jim warner uc santa cruz