[NTISP Digest]

ntisp-digest-request@iea-software.com
Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:00:17 -0700

Message 1: SCSI CD ROM and Event 9's
from "Bill Appledorf" <bappled1@san.rr.com>

Message 2: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
from "Rudy Komsic" <rudyk@cyberglobe.net>

Message 3: Here's a stupid one.
from "Dan Waldron" <dan@diversified.com.au>

Message 4: Re: Here's a stupid one.
from Jeff Woods <jwoods@delta.com>

Message 5: Defrag Programs
from "John David M. Miller" <webmaster@samnet.net>

Message 6: RE: Defrag Programs
from rkm@marshall.net (rkm)

Message 7: Re: Defrag Programs
from "Josh Hillman" <admin-maillist@talstar.com>

Message 8: Re: Here's a stupid one.
from "Dan Waldron" <dan@diversified.com.au>

Message 9: RE: Here's a stupid one.
from "Dwight G. Jones" <djones@imagen.net>

Message 10: No Domain Controller
from "WINNT" <winnt@hotline.net.au>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: SCSI CD ROM and Event 9's
From: "Bill Appledorf" <bappled1@san.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:36:48 -0700

Ran into a SCSI problem bringing up an NT server.

Components: ABIT BX6 motherboard (Award Bios) running at 66 Mhz, PII 300,
256 MB RAM, Adaptec 2940UW, Quantum Fireball 2.1 W SCSI system disk, Seagate
9 LP UW data disk, Sony 10 MB SCSI CD ROM, 3-COM 10/100 Ethernet card.

Problem: Event 9's copying large amounts of data from CD ROM to either disk.
Been to Adaptec and MS support pages, have the latest drivers. CD ROM keeps
pace with the data transfer for a while, then you hear it retrying until PCI
port 0 times out.

Has anyone seen this problem and resolved it successfully? (We had an IDE CD
ROM plugged in initially and were getting Event 11's as well as Event 9's.
Shutting down the IDE subsystem eradicated the 11's. )

The BX6 could be at fault because it is not on the NT compatible hardware
list, but there is no definitive evidence it is. Would configuring our SCSI
devices in a particular way solve this problem?

Thanks.

Bill Appledorf
billappledorf@usa.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
From: "Rudy Komsic" <rudyk@cyberglobe.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:10:21 -0400

Well, we would like to as we did in the past but most people complain about
the extra charges and said they did not expect the amount of people hitting
their site. This is why we would like to Limit the User sites until they
commit to our Web Hosting solutions.

A personal web page is just that. Being Personal. It is not made for
commercial use. We have see several providers (eg: total.net) has limiting
features that will automatically display a different page if the access has
gone beyond 100mb/month of transfer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>
To: 'ntisp@iea-software.com' <ntisp@iea-software.com>
Date: June 10, 1998 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

>Why not use something like Stats server from Media House and bill them
>for the extra bandwidth?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rudy Komsic [mailto:rudyk@cyberglobe.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 3:54 AM
>To: ntisp@iea-software.com
>Subject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
>
>
>If I limited the Bandwidth for personal webpages (100 MB/month Traffic)
>then
>the Bandwidth limiter will be like 0.02 Kb/s...
>
>That is why we need an alternative to generate extra Income for
>Bandwidth
>used.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Andersen <mander@zso.dec.com>
>To: 'ntisp@iea-software.com' <ntisp@iea-software.com>
>Date: June 10, 1998 1:07 AM
>Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
>
>
>>Why don't you just limit that bandwidth available to them?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Rudy Komsic [mailto:rudyk@cyberglobe.net]
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 8:24 PM
>>To: ntisp@iea-software.com
>>Subject: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
>>
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>As we have been seeing more and more personal users abusing their web
>>hosting
>>priviledges, we are looking into implementing a personal web host
>>traffic
>>limiter. What it would do is determine if the specified personal
>>client's
>>website had gone over the monthly allowance of web traffic. If he did,
>>he
>>would be referred to our "Client's website had too many hits this month
>>and
>>will return next month" web page.
>>
>>Can anyone point me to the right direction on obtaining software like
>>this for
>>MIIS 4.0?
>>
>>----
>>Rudy Komsic
>>President, Network Administrator - Cyberglobe Communications Inc.
>>4996 Place de la Savane, Suite 200, Montreal, Quebec, H4P 1Z6
>>Tel: (514)342-3883 Fax: (514)342-5139 E-Mail: rudyk@cyberglobe.net
>>
>>
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 3 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Here's a stupid one.
From: "Dan Waldron" <dan@diversified.com.au>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:50:42 +1000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BD958B.5CB4FDC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This may seem a rather elementary question, but, why would I want to use =
RADIUS authentication of users as opposed to NT's user authentiation? =
I'm not using a router, I'm using NT's inbuilt router capabilities, =
which have been working well for me for two years now so I have yet to =
be convinced on changing.

Perhaps there are some major benefits that I do not yet know about?

Rgds
Dan

-------------------------------------------
Dan Waldron
Diversified Data
dan@diversified.com.au
http://www.diversified.com.au
Ph: 0417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)
Fx: 02-9832-0951 (+61-2-9832-0951)

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BD958B.5CB4FDC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

This may seem a rather elementary =question, but,=20why would I want to use RADIUS authentication of users as opposed to =NT's user=20authentiation? I'm not using a router, I'm using NT's inbuilt router=20capabilities, which have been working well for me for two years now so I =have=20yet to be convinced on changing.
 
Perhaps there are some major benefits that I do not =yet know=20about?
 
Rgds
Dan

-------------------------------------------
Dan=20Waldron
Diversified Data
dan@diversified.com.au
http://www.diversified.com.au<=BR>Ph:=200417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)
Fx: 02-9832-0951=20(+61-2-9832-0951)
------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BD958B.5CB4FDC0--..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 4 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: Here's a stupid one.From: Jeff Woods Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:11:15 -0400Users don't have to log onto NT's DOMAIN to gain Internet access, forone. If you have 100 phone lines coming in, your NT servers have to haveat least 100 client licenses, plus enough for shares. With RADIUS,they're never logging onto the NT box proper -- just to the Internetservice you provide, via RADIUS.At 10:50 PM 6/11/98 +1000, you wrote: >>>>This may seem a rather elementary question, but, whywould I want to use RADIUS authentication of users as opposed to NT'suser authentiation? I'm not using a router, I'm using NT's inbuiltrouter capabilities, which have been working well for me for two yearsnow so I have yet to be convinced on changing. Perhapsthere are some major benefits that I do not yet know about? Rgds Dan size=2>-------------------------------------------Dan WaldronDiversified Datadan@diversified.com.auhttp://www.diversified.com.auPh: 0417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)Fx: 02-9832-0951 (+61-2-9832-0951)..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 5 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Defrag ProgramsFrom: "John David M. Miller" Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:14:59 -0400Just wondering what everyone uses for defrag.I have been looking at Diskeeper and O & O Defrag.Is anyone using the Server version of Diskeeper? Isit as easy to setup an entire Domain defrag as theysay on their web site?TIAJohn Millerwebmaster@samnet.net..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 6 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: Defrag ProgramsFrom: rkm@marshall.net (rkm)Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:18:56 -0400We use nortons and love it. The live update feature should be common farefor all software vendors.> -----Original Message-----> From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com> [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of John David M. Miller> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 11:15 AM> To: NT-ISP> Subject: Defrag Programs>>>> Just wondering what everyone uses for defrag.>> I have been looking at Diskeeper and O & O Defrag.> Is anyone using the Server version of Diskeeper? Is> it as easy to setup an entire Domain defrag as they> say on their web site?>> TIA>> John Miller> webmaster@samnet.net>>>>..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 7 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: Defrag ProgramsFrom: "Josh Hillman" Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:48:02 -0400> From: John David M. Miller > Just wondering what everyone uses for defrag.I'm not using any at the moment, but there are a couple listed at:http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/solutions/softwarepart/tools/maintnce.aspunder Disk UtilitiesJosh Hillmanhillman@talstar.com..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 8 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: Here's a stupid one.From: "Dan Waldron" Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 06:09:18 +1000This is a multi-part message in MIME format.------=_NextPart_000_00B5_01BD95C8.A291BDA0Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableThanks for that Jeff. I thought the resolution was that CALs weren't =needed if one was only using TCP/IP? I remember this discussion on the =list about 18 months ago. Is RADIUS an expensive option, or is it =difficult to administer? Any idea on how it integrates with Virtual =Motion's Remote Access Manager?RgdsDan-------------------------------------------Dan WaldronDiversified Datadan@diversified.com.auhttp://www.diversified.com.auPh: 0417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)Fx: 02-9832-0951 (+61-2-9832-0951) -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Woods To: ntisp@iea-software.com Date: Thursday, 11 June 1998 23:11 Subject: Re: Here's a stupid one. =20 =20 Users don't have to log onto NT's DOMAIN to gain Internet access, =for one. If you have 100 phone lines coming in, your NT servers have to =have at least 100 client licenses, plus enough for shares. With RADIUS, =they're never logging onto the NT box proper -- just to the Internet =service you provide, via RADIUS. =20 At 10:50 PM 6/11/98 +1000, you wrote:=20 >>>> =20 This may seem a rather elementary question, but, why would I =want to use RADIUS authentication of users as opposed to NT's user =authentiation? I'm not using a router, I'm using NT's inbuilt router =capabilities, which have been working well for me for two years now so I =have yet to be convinced on changing. Perhaps there are some major =benefits that I do not yet know about? Rgds Dan size=3D2> ------------------------------------------- Dan Waldron Diversified Data dan@diversified.com.au http://www.diversified.com.au Ph: 0417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828) Fx: 02-9832-0951 (+61-2-9832-0951) =20 =20 =20 =20------=_NextPart_000_00B5_01BD95C8.A291BDA0Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for that Jeff. I thought the =resolution=20was that CALs weren't needed if one was only using TCP/IP? I remember =this=20discussion on the list about 18 months ago. Is RADIUS an expensive =option, or is=20it difficult to administer? Any idea on how it integrates with Virtual =Motion's=20Remote Access Manager?
 
Rgds
Dan

-------------------------------------------
Dan=20Waldron
Diversified Data
dan@diversified.com.au
http://www.diversified.com.au<=BR>Ph:=200417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)
Fx: 02-9832-0951=20(+61-2-9832-0951)
-----Original =Message-----
From:=20 Jeff Woods <jwoods@delta.com>
To: =ntisp@iea-software.com =<ntisp@iea-software.com>
=Date:=20 Thursday, 11 June 1998 23:11
Subject: Re: Here's a =stupid=20 one.

Users don't have to log onto NT's DOMAIN to =gain=20 Internet access, for one. If you have 100 phone lines coming in, =your NT=20 servers have to have at least 100 client licenses, plus enough for =shares.=20 With RADIUS, they're never logging onto the NT box proper -- just to =the=20 Internet service you provide, via RADIUS.

At 10:50 PM 6/11/98 =+1000,=20 you wrote:
>>>>
This may seem a rather elementary question, =but,=20 why would I want to use RADIUS authentication of users as =opposed to=20 NT's user authentiation? I'm not using a router, I'm using NT's =inbuilt=20 router capabilities, which have been working well for me for two =years=20 now so I have yet to be convinced on =changing.=20 Perhaps there are some major benefits that I do not yet know =about? Rgds Dan=20 =size=3D2>
-------------------------------------------
Dan=20 Waldron
Diversified=20 =Data
dan@diversified.com.au
http://www.diversified.com.au
Ph:=20 0417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)
Fx: 02-9832-0951=20 =(+61-2-9832-0951)



=------=_NextPart_000_00B5_01BD95C8.A291BDA0--..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 9 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: Here's a stupid one.From: "Dwight G. Jones" Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:15:52 -0700This is a multi-part message in MIME format.------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BD954B.D27F8420Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitWe run 63 of our phone lines using RAS, no problems whatsoever. You can alsouse RRAS or the new MS Radius that is available with the NT Optionpack.Some months ago we put together a remote POP with a USR Total control rackrunning with RRAS. We have not been out there since - ABSOLUTELY reliable.Dwight-----Original Message-----From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com[mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Dan WaldronSent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 5:51 AMTo: NT ISP listSubject: Here's a stupid one.This may seem a rather elementary question, but, why would I want to useRADIUS authentication of users as opposed to NT's user authentiation? I'mnot using a router, I'm using NT's inbuilt router capabilities, which havebeen working well for me for two years now so I have yet to be convinced onchanging.Perhaps there are some major benefits that I do not yet know about?RgdsDan-------------------------------------------Dan WaldronDiversified Datadan@diversified.com.auhttp://www.diversified.com.auPh: 0417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)Fx: 02-9832-0951 (+61-2-9832-0951)------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BD954B.D27F8420Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We run=2063 of our phone lines using RAS, no problems whatsoever. You can also =use RRAS=20or the new MS Radius that is available with the NT=20Optionpack.
 
Some=20months ago we put together a remote POP with a USR Total control rack =running=20with RRAS. We have not been out there since - ABSOLUTELY=20reliable.
 
Dwight
-----Original Message-----
From: =ntisp-request@iea-software.com=20[mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Dan=20Waldron
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 5:51 AM
To: NT =ISP=20list
Subject: Here's a stupid one.

This may seem a rather elementary =question, but,=20why would I want to use RADIUS authentication of users as opposed to =NT's user=20authentiation? I'm not using a router, I'm using NT's inbuilt router=20capabilities, which have been working well for me for two years now so I =have=20yet to be convinced on changing.
 
Perhaps there are some major benefits that I do not =yet know=20about?
 
Rgds
Dan

-------------------------------------------
Dan=20Waldron
Diversified Data
dan@diversified.com.au
http://www.diversified.com.au<=BR>Ph:=200417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)
Fx: 02-9832-0951=20(+61-2-9832-0951)
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BD954B.D27F8420--..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 10 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: No Domain ControllerFrom: "WINNT" Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 16:53:29 +1000Hello List,I have a very weird problem with dial in into a NT4 Server SP3.The server is running RRAS+MSProxy2+Exchange 5.5 + 4port equinox with 3modems.User1 has a notebook connected to network via RJ45 or modem and can log intothe domain fine.User2 has a PC at home and can also dial into the domain via modem onlyfine.If user1 uses user2's pc they get a message saying "No Domain controlleravailable to validate your password".All workstations are WIN95 OSR2 and running TCP/IP assigned by DHCP.Their is only 1 NT server on the network.I cannot understand why the user1 can work fine both on the network andmodem on their notebook but not on user2's pc. user1/2 are married and needdual access.If we bypass the domain error they login and can get their mail but theyalso need to access files which wont happen unless they get validated by thePDC.I think that WIN95 is somehow cacheing the users and screwing up thepasswords.PLEASE HELPMalcolm JoosseTechnical DirectorHotline Support Pty. Ltd. " Our Service is your Support "malcolm@hotline.net.auwww.hotline.net.au