Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!phri!roy From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk,comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Using Kinetics boxes an an etherbridge Message-ID: <3059@phri.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Dec-87 23:24:57 EST Article-I.D.: phri.3059 Posted: Mon Dec 7 23:24:57 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Dec-87 08:34:08 EST References: <3057@phri.UUCP> Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 23 Xref: mnetor comp.protocols.appletalk:300 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:1927 In article <3057@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP I wrote: > The U-B bridge can pass hundreds of packets per second. A kbox, with a > poor little 6809 (?) processor in it, couldn't hope to keep up with a > fraction of that traffic. Two corrections to add. First, I got a note from kinetics!swan (Michael J. Swan), who is Director of Software Products. Michael says: [...] no, that type of setup wouldn't work because our gateway is not a true IP router (I assume you were routing IP style packets). The KFPS code routes according to what's commonly refered to as Mac/IP routing which implements a subset of IP-style routing. Also, to dispell some other misinformation you received, the KFPS uses a 68008 processor, not a 6809. Also, from glancing at my newly-arrived Ungermann-Bass product literature, I see that my estimate of "hundreds of packets per second" was low by about an order of magnitude. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016