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