Robert Herriot wrote:
>> I think that you are missing a piece in the transition story.
> Customers will install print servers that run IPP servers, but
> acessible via these servers must also be accessible via LPD protocol
> for those client still running older systems. Thus these new IPP
> will also have to support LPD as well, either directly or via an
> LPD-to-IPP gateway.
I'm assuming that you're talking about the installation of a
new print server box, since existing print server boxes would be
running LPD already for the existing LPR clients. In the case of a
new print server being installed that will host IPP services, if
the administrator also wants LPD support, why can't he/she enable
LPD as well and run LPD<->LPD? Maybe we should be exchanging
graphical pictures ...
>> Bob Herriot
>>> > From rturner at sharplabs.com Mon Sep 8 13:53:38 1997
> > Robert Herriot wrote:
> > >
> > > > From rturner at sharplabs.com Fri Sep 5 18:50:19 1997
> > >
> > > > I don't consider the scenario of an LPD client talking over the
> > > network
> > > > to a IPP server to be a viable scenario. For transitional
> > > > administrators should not be tearing down their existing
> > > > environments, in this case, we don't have to worry about
> > > > converting LPD control file attributes to IPP equivalents;
> > > each
> > > > site's existing LPD environment works fine as it is.
> > >
> > > You forgot about the very important case of new IPP servers having
> > > take jobs from existing LPD clients. This will require LPD-to-IPP
> > > gateways
> > > on such servers in order to allow for an orderly transition of
> > > customers.
> > This is the case I was talking about, I don't think this is a
> > prevalent case. The currently existing base of LPR clients currently
> > use LPR/LPD to print, and these systems work. When transitioning
> > to IPP, I don't expect these systems to be torn down. Rather, I
> > expect client to slowly be configured with IPP clients. You could
> > even have a hybrid case where the LPR/remote-LP (SYSV) system has
> > their respective "printcap" file entries for certain IPP-enabled
> > servers point to shell scripts that automatically launch a real
> > IPP client to do the "over-the-wire" stuff.
> > Overall, I don't consider this particular gateway problem to be
> > worthy of altering the original model. The real value in getting
> > IPP to users is not enabling LPR clients, its enabling IPP clients
> > being able to locate IPP printers via the WEB and subsequently
> > printing to them. I think we're spending too much time trying to
> > save gateway writers a few lines of code.
> > Randy