Re: ComOS dest 0.0.0.0 PPP bug
Allen J. Newton (anewton@basis.com)
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:41:49 -0600 (MDT)
Kevin Sears x3-5160 wrote:
> Subject: Re: ComOS dest 0.0.0.0 PPP bug
>
> I don't have answers but I do have questions.
>
> I have seen more than one person comment that this condition occurs on the busiest Portmaster.
>
> 1) Are the incoming phone lines on a rotary so that load balance occurs across all the ports?
>
> 2) Did this problem occur in ComOS 2.x or just started in 3.x?
>
> Observations from my own syslog
> -------------------------------
> I grep'ed through my syslogs and found...
> [snip]
> Feb 17 13:24:31 pm0 dialnet: port S4 puser1 succeeded dest 0.0.0.0 ipx 3575C04
> Feb 17 13:26:18 pm0 dialnet: port S4 puser1 succeeded dest 0.0.0.0 ipx 3575C01
> Feb 17 13:30:17 pm0 dialnet: port S1 puser1 succeeded dest 0.0.0.0 ipx 3575C02
> Feb 17 13:55:17 pm0 dialnet: port S1 puser1 succeeded dest 0.0.0.0 ipx 3575C06
> Feb 17 13:57:38 pm0 dialnet: port S1 puser1 succeeded dest 0.0.0.0 ipx 3575C09
>
> Note!
> -This user account is PPP. Yet, what is this ipx referrence?
All of my Win95 users get this. I think Win95 broadcasts ipx packets
_regardless_ of whether or not you've got ipx checked off on the protocols,
or even "installed" (meaning all that comes with ipx...obviously
SOMEthing's still responsible). When they send their Pusername and
password, they get in as who they're supposed to be.
I've asked about this, too. "Officially", Win95 isn't sending any ipx
packets, "the PortMasters must be doing it". Yeah, but non-Win95 users
don't cause it... ;-)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton BASIS International Ltd, (505)-345-5232
5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109
anewton@basis.com Network Administrator <*>