Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!sugar!ficc!finco
From: finco@ficc.uu.net (gary finco)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Router interoperability
Summary: It eliminates finger-pointing!!!
Message-ID: <6641@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 23 Oct 89 16:01:34 GMT
References: <89Oct17.165048edt.57354@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 22

In article <89Oct17.165048edt.57354@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca>, FILLMORE@EMRCAN.BITNET writes:
> I have a (perhaps naive) question about the interoperability of routers:
> We want to join Ethernet LANs in two different cities with a 56kbps sync
> line.  The LANs run a variety of protocols such as XNS, TCP/IP, Decnet.
> We want to use routers at each end of the line.  Do the two routers
> have to be from the same manufacturer?  If so, why?  One of the routers
> is a Cisco box but the other could be Proteon or some other make
> (or does it have to be a Cisco?).
> ________________________

After talking to both Cisco and Proteon about the same question,
I was told that it is recommended that the routers be from the
same manufacturer at both ends of the link.  The reason they gave
me was that they have their own data link implementation which
most likely will not match exactly with a different vendor's.  

I also feel that having one vendor per link will eliminate the
finger pointing that could arise from a failure to communicate.

Disclaimer:  I speak for myself and no one speaks for me.  

gjf