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