> I'm going to break my own guidelines and post something off-topic
since
> it caused me a good 3 days of grief and a great deal of anxiety...

I'll break mine by replying..

<parts deleted>

>
> The problem... NETX issues a "Get Nearest Server (GNS)" request to
find
> a server to attach to (if no PS= parameter) or to resolve the name to
a
> Novell network address (if PS= is specified).  Well, if you don't have
a
> real Novell server on that network, the Win95 machine will eventually
> answer the GNS broadcast, but then is unable to do the name
resolution.
> Router forwarding doesn't work, since GNS requests aren't forwarded as
> long as there is an IPX server on that segment (and the Win95 machines
> look sufficiently like a Novell server).

This is a well documented bug^h^h^hfeature of windows 95. My
understanding is that Microsoft apparently reverse-engineered
the Netware 2.x-version server for it's implementation of file
and print sharing over IPX, thus it looks like a server to other
workstations. I was told that it even advertises itself as being
one hop closer that it really is, but I never confirmed it..

> The solution is to remove the Win95 sharing service, or in our case,
add
> a real Novell server (our problem was caused by a dual-interface
server
> having NIC problems on this segment, so it was unbound, leaving no
real
> server on that network).

You can enable Windows95 file and print sharing using the
Client for Microsoft Networks and NetBEUI or NetBIOS and
still use the Netware client for real Netware file and and
print sharing at the same time. As long as the Windows95
machine is not allowed to SAP itself as a Netware server
over IPX, you should be fine.

> This almost brings closure to the problem with one exception -- if you
> have both Novell servers and Win95 sharing machines on the same
network,
> what prevents the Win95 server from answering the GNS query first?

Maybe your router modifications caused the Win95 machine to get
that reply in a little earlier??? Hard to tell..

> local cisco SE says probably nothing.  The tech support SE says that
> Win95 likely has a delay built-in for GNS responses.  But I still do
not
> have a definitive answer.
>
> Anyone out there have an authoritative answer to this admittedly
> off-topic, cryptic question?  I'd feel much better knowing for sure.
>
> Sorry for the non-3K bandwidth waste, but we have Joe and Denys and
some
> other Microsoft gurus aboard, so I'm taking my chances.
>
> Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>
>
Ray.