Article View: alt.internet.wireless
Article #497Re: Netbeiu?
From: David H. Lynch Jr.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 04:15
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 04:15
86 lines
5231 bytes
5231 bytes
Netbeui started with the original netbios implimentation of IBM's PC NET
I beleive they purchased somebody else to get it. Netbeui was M$'s
implimentation
of it. Both IBM's Netbios implimentation and Microsofts NetBeui ran directly
over ethernet. Microsoft intended NetBeui to compete directly with IPX/SPX
and at the time TCP/IP was not even seriously considered for PC's There was
significant
techinical debate over the relative merits of IPX/SPX vs. NetBeui, Netbeui
being
significantly faster in the ordinary networks of the time, and IPX/SPX being
routable.
Meanwhile the internet came along requiring TCP/IP and has basically pretty
much
ended the debate and killed of both. Microsoft no longer supports Netbeui.
I am sure
there are still organizations using IPX/SPX but it is slowly dying off.
Despite numerous efforts to try and make it more friendly TCP/IP is much
more
difficult to setup and overkill for most small or medium networks. But
manditory for
internet and once you must have it, it really is the only protocol you need.
"Warren H." <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ivvV8.298711$6m5.274357@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> Gunter Herrmann wrote:
> >
> > Since it is about using a router NetBEUI is completely useless.
> > Unlike TCP/IP and SPX/IPX, NetBEUI is NOT routable.
>
> You are correct that NetBEUI is not routable, but the "broadband routers"
> available on the market today use a router only for the LAN to WAN
> connection. The LAN is still serviced by a switch or a hub, so
non-routable
> protocols still pass on the LAN.
>
> HOWEVER, just because it does work is no reason to install it. TCP/IP will
> work on these networks as well. If it doesn't, then something is
> misconfigured. Adding a second protocol doesn't fix the problem. It just
> works around it. One or the other protocol is going to be the default
> protocol. Let's look at the options:
>
> If TCP/IP is the default protocol, then TCP/IP communications will be
> attempted first, and until they fail or time-out, NetBEUI won't be used.
If
> NetBEUI is the default protocol, then NetBEUI communications will be
> attempted first, and TCP/IP won't be attempted until NetBEUI fails.
>
> So while previous posters have noted that NetBEUI is a great little
protocol
> for small LAN's, it was designed with the assumption that it would be the
> primary protocol, or perhaps secondary to IPX/SPX on a Novel network. The
> Internet was something that existed, but most LAN's weren't even connected
> to the Internet. In those days, NetBEUI was the perfect solution to simple
> networking.
>
> The situation today is different. TCP/IP is so integrated in Windows XP
that
> it cannot be uninstalled through the GUI, and it cannot be made to be the
> secondary protocol to NetBEUI. NetBEUI is so much out of the picture that
> they buried it on the CD, and didn't make allowances for it to be
installed
> through the GUI.
>
> The solution to having a LAN where TCP/IP is not working for internal
> communications is to fix TCP/IP. Installing NetBEUI is like putting a sign
> on your front door telling people to go around back instead of fixing the
> way the front door sticks. It may be a temporary work-around, but it's not
a
> solution.
>
> --
> Warren H.
>
> ==========
> Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my employer, my
> friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife. Any resemblance to the views
> of anybody living or dead is coincidental. No animals were hurt in the
> writing of this response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to
> go outside now.
>
>
>
>
>
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<ujesroh7lnn82d@corp.supernews.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!panix!news-xfer.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<jyaU8.565721$Oa1.36076408@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> <hUaU8.107741$Lf2.8075321@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> <47f2iugq33jsp6b4vllsfejr8ffhdf14lo@4ax.com> <%ibU8.513517$%y.34681440@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> <avi2iuk17iuhk1p7u71tudu65kt16oodjk@4ax.com> <8jgU8.90599$Ca2.4959368@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> <MPG.178bb15abe10a84198979c@news.cis.dfn.de> <3D2660BF.3803F4FB@comcast.net> <ivvV8.298711$6m5.274357@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 113850,8ad910587741efd3 X-Google-Attributes: gid113850,public X-Google-Thread: 104fd2,8ad910587741efd3 X-Google-Attributes: gid104fd2,public X-Google-Thread: 10f392,8ad910587741efd3 X-Google-Attributes: gid10f392,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-18 19:06:03 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!panix!news-xfer.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "David H. Lynch Jr." <dhlii@1dla.com> Newsgroups: alt.internet.wireless,cableinet.cable_modems,comp.dcom.modems.cable Subject: Re: Netbeiu? Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:15:25 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <ujesroh7lnn82d@corp.supernews.com> References: <jyaU8.565721$Oa1.36076408@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> <hUaU8.107741$Lf2.8075321@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> <47f2iugq33jsp6b4vllsfejr8ffhdf14lo@4ax.com> <%ibU8.513517$%y.34681440@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> <avi2iuk17iuhk1p7u71tudu65kt16oodjk@4ax.com> <8jgU8.90599$Ca2.4959368@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> <MPG.178bb15abe10a84198979c@news.cis.dfn.de> <3D2660BF.3803F4FB@comcast.net> <ivvV8.298711$6m5.274357@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 88