Re: Connecting to Ethernet

[dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson)]

Toby Reiter <str4552@OBERLIN.EDU> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > Toby Reiter <str4552@OBERLIN.EDU> wrote:
> > 
> > > There was a recent discussion in comp.sys.apple2 about methods for
> > > connecting a IIgs to ethernet, and a lot of people proposed extremely
> > > complicated and expensive solutions. One thing that I have seen here at
> > > my college (Oberlin) has really piqued my curiousity. It is a cable which
> > > connects to a serial mini din8 port, ends in what looks like a rs232
> > > serial connection (male I guess) which is then attached to a female rs232
> > > which then become a ethernet, cable and is plugged into an ethernet port
> > > on the wall. Does anyone know what this thing is, and could it be used
> > > with a IIgs?
> > 
> > What is it connected to at the moment?  A Macintosh or something else?
>
> I assume you mean my IIgs.

No, I meant the cable you described above - you mention an Ethernet port
at one end, a converter box and a Mini-Din-8 port, so I assume it is
being connected to a Macintosh at present, as opposed to some other
device that has a Mini-Din-8 serial port.

(You are interested in finding out whether the IIgs can be connected in
the same way.)

> > The most likely explanation is that what you take to be an Ethernet port
> > is actually a LocalTalk connection.  This would go to a bridge or router
> > which converts it into Ethernet (this can be done in software on a Mac
> > with LocalTalk and Ethernet support).
>
> There are a few Mac Se's which I think are connected in this fashion in
> another part of the campus. But the one I am typing on right now is 
> definitely using ethernet, as these ports used to be occupied by vt100
> dumb terminals (now occupied by Macintosh SE dumb terminals, what a waste).

Ah - now it makes sense.  There is no way that you could possibly
connect a VT-100 terminal directly to an Ethernet: the VT-100 only
supports an asynchronous serial connection (possibly sync serial as
well, but that is beside the point).

This means that your supposed "Ethernet port" on the wall is actually a
serial port which goes to a terminal server.  This server is then
connected to the Ethernet backbone in some fashion.

> Well, actually I'm not sure. These Mac SE's are using Kermit (relatively
> poor communications package) and are set up in such a way that the system
> is completely inaccessible.

If the Macs are using Kermit, then they are definitely running over a
serial connection.  The terminal server is probably using a Telnet
connection over Ethernet to the host machine, and the host machine is
able to support Kermit file transfers.

You could easily use a IIgs in the same manner - run standard
communications software on the IIgs (e.g. Kermit, Z-Link, ProTerm,
ANSITerm or Spectrum), and see what happens.  If the host only supports
Kermit file transfers, you need a comms program which supports the
Kermit protocol.

> > > Also, does anyone know if Macintosh servers can be accessed over an
> > > EtherTalk network? This would be nirvana for me, if this could be done.
>
> I'm not much into purchasing anything more than about $20 to get this
> connection going. Routers run in the range of hundreds of dollars, right?

Yes.

> I also don't have direct connection to a Macintosh hooked up to the 
> network, (the closest Mac is a SE which would have to be connected the
> same way is this one is now).

The existing Macs do not have direct access to the Ethernet, so this is
a moot point.  They are effectively running in a hard-wired terminal
session to a UNIX host.  It may be possible to run TCP/IP over this
connection if the host machine is able to pump PPP or SLIP through the
Telnet connection (freaky!  TCP/IP encapsulated in a protocol running on
top of TCP/IP), or the terminal server can be configured to provide
this.