Subj : thanks :) To : Stewart Honsberger From : David Calafrancesco Date : Sat Feb 17 2001 07:29 am Stewart Honsberger wrote in a message to David Calafrancesco: SH> Feb 16 2001 02:19, David Calafrancesco wrote to Patrick McGuire: PM>> RE: InJoy SH> [...] DC> If you are using a modem to connect, then the extended client is just DC> fine. I have used it here for years. SH> Just fine ... So long as you're not attempting to NAT/MASQ for the SH> number of clients you paid for. SH> We ran the Injoy client with a 5 machine license for some years, SH> and when we ran it with even four machines we would have to re-boot SH> the server (not just re-start the client, but re-boot the server SH> itself) in order to get access back. "IP Table Exhausted" it would SH> tell us. Dumping the IP table gained us all of 2 minutes of time SH> when our clients would again be 'live' before we'd see the same SH> message. Interesting... I have the 4-5 machine license and have used it since it was in alpha release. I have even had more machines connected than my license allows and still didn't have your problem. Were you running a static IP or a dynamic IP from your ISP? SH> Inquiries were sent repeatedly to the author, who repeated time and SH> time again that it was not his fault, and even at times became SH> highly belidgerant with us. There were known IBM TCPIP stack issues that were fixed and yet I still heard of a very few people having problems... often it was found they hadn't updated the stack... being on the alpha team we tried duplicating the problems and when we were able to definatively say that it was this combination of factors it was either fixed by Bjarn or sent on to IBM for them to fix. I recall Bjarn made a fix to his product that would work around IBM not fixing their problem. SH> We decided at that point to 'borrow' a friend's platinum (IIRC) SH> license for some 20 workstations, but all that did was increase the SH> time before the client would blow up from 2-3 days to 5-6 days. SH> Either way, we never saw a ten day uptime for that OS/2 box. What version of InJoy were you running? SH> Once we upgraded from our 28.8 dial-up to an @Home cable SH> connection, and to the InJoy Firewall product we never again saw SH> the "IP Table Exhausted" message. We did, however, notice that when SH> we tried to use the exact number of workstations for which we'd SH> paid (again, 5) it would stop responding for two of the SH> workstations (the two most recently accessing the Internet, from my SH> observations). Of course, since we'd opted not to pay the extra SH> $50-$100USD for the "gold" version, we weren't permitted to make SH> support inquiries of him. SH> We've since given up entirely on the InJoy line of products and are SH> now quite happily running ipchains under Linux (soon to be SH> iptables, when I get around to learning the new syntax). No client SH> restrictions, no licensing, no support hassles, no expensive SH> upgrades, no hassles period. If a Linux box is an option then by all means go for it. I too plan to switch my gateway to a Linux box but I just haven't had the time to set it up. SH> So be warned that you will most likely not get what you pay for SH> from FX. I am sorry you had problems... I am curious on what your scenario was as I have been using InJoy for a very very very long time without the problems you have described. I don't think I have had more than 7 or 8 systems connected at the same time so the 5 system license was adequate for my purposes. SH> SH> Stewart Honsberger (AKA Blackdeath) SH> blackdeath@softhome.net SH> http://tinys.cx/blackdeath SH> ___ Msged/LNX TE 06 (pre) SH> - Origin: Blackdeath BBS - telnet://blackdeath.2y.net (1:229/604) Dave Calafrancesco, Team OS/2 dave@drakkar.org .... They got the library at Alexandria, they're not getting mine! --- * Origin: Druid's Grove BBS - (914)/876-2237 (1:2624/306) .