Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!saturn!eshop From: eshop@saturn.ucsc.edu (Jim Warner) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Terminal servers over ethernet? Message-ID: <3960@saturn.ucsc.edu> Date: 28 Jun 88 23:24:57 GMT References: <320@ucrmath.UUCP>Reply-To: eshop@saturn.ucsc.edu (Jim Warner) Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 25 In article ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >We ran Bridge servers here for several years... >My main observation on Bridge products in general is that they work >as claimed, are really reliable, but they don't always get the protocols >right. For example the terminal servers have some small problems in the >options negotiation and they don't do ICMP at all. They also don't do >Domain name server, but I here you can get that now, if you have a box >with enough memory in it to run their new software. We have a Bridge LS/1 with 64 ports. We are running their current software. It has the Domain name server with the ability to use an alternate if the primary is down. This all works quite well. Their current code (TCP 20000) also answers ICMP echo requests (ping) and accepts ICMP redirects. I had some difficulty with their telnet option negotiation, but the problem turned out to be that what they were doing was different than what 4.3BSD does, but still legal. My biggest complaint with the Bridge terminal server is that it cannot be configured to time out a terminal that has been inactive for longer than some threshold. Like Ron, I found that the box is very reliable. jim warner Univ of California, Santa Cruz