Named Pipe question

Hi,
I'm wondering when do I need to use the Named Pipes connection in our SQL
Server 2000 and clients environment?
If all our LAN are running on the TCP/IP, do we need to use the Name Pipes?
Thanks for help.
JasonNamed Pipes is used only for LANs. However it does not support routing and
gateways. As it requires more interaction between your server and your
client you'll need a fast network because of the extra burden (especially
when compared to TCP\IP).
If TCP\IP works fine for you, go with it and disable NP to free some
resources and close extra ways for potention intruders.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Jason Huang" <JasonHuang8888@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uiQd%23KFIIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm wondering when do I need to use the Named Pipes connection in our SQL
> Server 2000 and clients environment?
> If all our LAN are running on the TCP/IP, do we need to use the Name
> Pipes?
> Thanks for help.
>
> Jason
>|||> Named Pipes is used only for LANs. However it does not support
> routing and gateways.
It's true that you don't route named pipes. But it's also the case you don't
directly route any other SQL Server netlib protocols such as TCP/IP which in
this particular context is really meant to refer to sockets instead of TCP at
the transport layer or IP at the network layer. In other words, you don't
care whether you can directly route any of the session layer protocols such
as sockets, named pipes, or RPC as long as they are built on IP that is
routable.
I don't know all the ancient history of SQL Server, but since 7.0 at least
and possibly with 6.5, named pipes for all that matters are built on top of
TCP/IP and can rely on IP for routing at the network layer.
Linchi
"Ekrem Ã?nsoy" wrote:
> Named Pipes is used only for LANs. However it does not support routing and
> gateways. As it requires more interaction between your server and your
> client you'll need a fast network because of the extra burden (especially
> when compared to TCP\IP).
> If TCP\IP works fine for you, go with it and disable NP to free some
> resources and close extra ways for potention intruders.
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
>
> "Jason Huang" <JasonHuang8888@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uiQd%23KFIIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm wondering when do I need to use the Named Pipes connection in our SQL
> > Server 2000 and clients environment?
> > If all our LAN are running on the TCP/IP, do we need to use the Name
> > Pipes?
> > Thanks for help.
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
>|||> I don't know all the ancient history of SQL Server, but since 7.0 at least
> and possibly with 6.5, named pipes for all that matters are built on top of
> TCP/IP and can rely on IP for routing at the network layer.
Here's how I understand it:
There are network protocols, such as:
TCP/IP (has routing functionality of course)
NetBEUI (very limited, if any, routing functionality)
IPX (original protocol in Novell)
A network protocol is of little use if we can't send data back and fort between application over
that network protocol. So, there are APIs:
NETBIOS (originally developed for NetBEUI, but is also supported over IP (requires WINS for name
resolution))
Sockets (not available for NetBEUI AFAIK, only TCP/IP)
Named Pipes (built on top of NETBIOS)
RPC (implemented and available over both NetBEUI and IP)
SPX (as I understand it, the API over IPX)
When MS released "their" SQL Server, they needed a way for the client app to communicate to the
server. They decided to go for Named Pipes and developed what we call "netlib". I.e., the MS
deveopers used the Named Pipes API (which is similar to reading and writing to a file from the
programmers perspective) when developing the Named Pipes netlib.
Over time, new netlibs were developed, where in 2000, this culminated in below list (netlibs using
the API):
Named Pipes
Sockets
RPC
VIA
SPX
There was never a netlib deveoped directly on top of NETBIOS, but indirectly through Named Pipes.
So, back to the original comment:
> but since 7.0 at least
> and possibly with 6.5, named pipes for all that matters are built on top of
> TCP/IP and can rely on IP for routing at the network layer.
Named Pipes uses NETBIOS, which available over IP, and hence is routable. This isn't tied to a
specific version of SQL Server.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A9D3D0D-2539-477C-8885-7CF2A55696F0@.microsoft.com...
>> Named Pipes is used only for LANs. However it does not support
>> routing and gateways.
> It's true that you don't route named pipes. But it's also the case you don't
> directly route any other SQL Server netlib protocols such as TCP/IP which in
> this particular context is really meant to refer to sockets instead of TCP at
> the transport layer or IP at the network layer. In other words, you don't
> care whether you can directly route any of the session layer protocols such
> as sockets, named pipes, or RPC as long as they are built on IP that is
> routable.
> I don't know all the ancient history of SQL Server, but since 7.0 at least
> and possibly with 6.5, named pipes for all that matters are built on top of
> TCP/IP and can rely on IP for routing at the network layer.
> Linchi
> "Ekrem Önsoy" wrote:
>> Named Pipes is used only for LANs. However it does not support routing and
>> gateways. As it requires more interaction between your server and your
>> client you'll need a fast network because of the extra burden (especially
>> when compared to TCP\IP).
>> If TCP\IP works fine for you, go with it and disable NP to free some
>> resources and close extra ways for potention intruders.
>> --
>> Ekrem nsoy
>>
>> "Jason Huang" <JasonHuang8888@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uiQd%23KFIIHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm wondering when do I need to use the Named Pipes connection in our SQL
>> > Server 2000 and clients environment?
>> > If all our LAN are running on the TCP/IP, do we need to use the Name
>> > Pipes?
>> > Thanks for help.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >