Bridge Communications TCP/IP 20000

Stan Barber (!
11 Mar 88 00:06:45 GMT

There has been some discussion about terminal servers and the Bridge
Communications products. Most of it has been "hear-say". I thought I'd
take this opportunity to make some concrete comments based on our
use of two versions of their software accross three products.

We run a large network that uses CS/1s, CS/100s and CS/200s. We had been
running XNS on the terminal servers until the end of last year when we
converted the TCP (version 13000). This version of TCP/IP was functional,
but no more than that. It was slow and it seemed that many useful TELNET
functions were not implemented. However, it worked well enough for the
month we had to wait for TCP 20000. [We were intending to convert to
20000 directly, but Bridge was delayed in getting it to us.] One useful
feature was the addition of permanent virtual circuits. This made remote
printers easy to do.

The new version was MUCH better than the older version. Flow control
was much more responsive (flow stops within a couple of bytes). TELNET's
binary option was now available (useful for some types of file transfers and
graphics). Throughput was MUCH improved.

Additionally, a rich macro language has been added as well as support for
the Domain Name Service.

Until recently, I was only marginally satisfied with the Bridge product. Now,
I am quite pleased with it. My only major remaining complaint is the lack
of support for a non-proprietary system logging function. I have suggested
that they make their log information available to the unix syslog function.
I hope they will.

Stan Barber, Baylor College of Medicine

Stan internet: Baylor College of Medicine
Olan uucp: {rice,killer,hoptoad}!academ!sob
Barber Opinions expressed are only mine.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:41:31 GMT