One little nit and I'll hush :-)

> > Typical Appletalk devices come up and listen
> >for their network (cable-range) number.  If they don't hear one, they
> >make one up.  Then they make up a node number and check for a
> >conflict. The consequence of this is that the first AT device that
> >powers up and sets its network parameters dictates the network number
> >that will be used, and subsequent devices will follow suit.

> Again, this is both the reason that an AppleTalk network can be
> self-configuring, and the reason that the self-configuration won't
> work past a certain size.

Size is irrelevant.  If an AT device powers up and configures itself
before a designated seed router, you're hosed, no matter how many
devices are on the network/subnet.  AT doesn't rely on a quorum, though
some devices will behave differently.  Macs will use the first network
address they hear.  Cisco routers refuse to start appletalk on an
interface with a network number conflict, even if configured as the seed
router.  Shiva Ethergates are similarly stubborn.

If you aren't routing, it isn't a problem, and matches Bruce's example
more closely.  Within a given subnet the network number (cable range) is
irrelevant as long as everyone agrees and you can stick with dynamic
choices.  But for real routing, you need to assign static network
numbers at least to your router ports to avoid address conflicts when
they are chosen at random.

I don't have anything against Appletalk, it's much more efficient than
Novell IPX, for example.  AT isn't a problem until a long power outage.

Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>