Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Terminal Servers & Ethernet Xcvrs
Message-ID: <17472@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: Fri, 10-Jul-87 19:59:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.17472
Posted: Fri Jul 10 19:59:44 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 12:49:59 EDT
References: <4746@columbia.UUCP> <12962@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Distribution: na
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Sunnyvale, Ca.
Lines: 65

Oh boy, another TCP vendor discussion.

In article <12962@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes:
>BRIDGE:  CS series
>  Bridge makes good hardware, but they don't always get the protocols
>  right.  There TCP used to be pretty awful though I admit they've gotten
>  better lately.  They still don't answer ICMP echos.  Also, you must either
>  boot these from floppy disk or have a Bridge server box.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they make good hardware; I know they
don't have acceptable diagnostics for their GS/3 series. We just
recently had a nasty problem with their V.35 interface cards. We have
a few which pass the diagnostics but don't work. Bridge Comm doesn't
have loopback tests. 

I know the guys working on the terminal server protocols and have high
hopes for them (if management doesn't get in their way). The last time
I talked to them (three weeks ago) they had just implemented ICMP.
(it's about time, Bridge Comm!) But, the future of their gateway
products (internet routers) is less clear.  They've made some promises
but they've already broken one promise to test their releases before
inflicting them on us. 

It used to be that if your routers had one high speed line and one low
speed line between them, their software would ignore the low speed
line as long as the high speed line worked. That meant we were paying
AT&T $1,400 per month per site to whistle at us. We asked BCI to test
their software with dirty phone lines before releasing it to us and
they agreed. We get release 11000 and it uses both lines as promised. 

It uses both lines even when one is dirty. When our low speed line got
dirty (which happens about once a week), things fell apart. Well, they
finally admitted they didn't test the release with dirty lines like
they promised. Their software kept resending over the dirty line
instead of doing something intelligent like using the good line. 

>Micom-Interlan:  No experience

I saw one at a trade show and it had some neat stuff in the way of
statistics information but their ideas on network management weren't
well developed. 

>Encore Annex:  These boxes are fairly well received.  I've heard nothing
>  but good things about them and their staff has been very helpful

Same here. I've tried it and liked it. But they don't have any
gateways.  Cisco has a more complete product line and we are
evaluating them. 

>Computer Machinery Corp:  They have a cute 8 line box that has the
>  most innovative packaging I've seen so far.  It looks pretty much
>  like a ethernet transciever with 8 RJ-11s on the side for the terminals.
>  Haven't actually used one.

Here's a company who seems to only want to sell you one box. The
reason I say that is because each box has to be individually
programmed to know the names and internet addresses of your hosts. As
we have over a hundred hosts, that's a lot of typing. Arpanet sites
will like this style of network management even more. (sarcasm, if you
don't recognize it) The sales drone I talked to didn't seem to think
name server support was important. I didn't even ask about routing
protocol support. 

-- 
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com