Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!inmet!dvb
From: dvb@inmet.inmet.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm
Subject: FastPath, NetBridges, Ethernet!
Message-ID: <155000001@inmet>
Date: 17 Jul 90 23:41:00 GMT
Lines: 37
Nf-ID: #N:inmet:155000001:000:1500
Nf-From: inmet.inmet.com!dvb    Jul 17 19:41:00 1990


Experts, if you please, a couple of questions:

We have two NetBridges and one FastPath: 

Scenario:  put two of our zones on one port each of the bridges.
      Then put the FastPath on a common zone between the two bridges.

Advantage: The two zones are localized.  Much speed.  And it
      is only one bridge hop to the FP (or anything else
      we put in the middle--like a NetModem, FaxModem, ...

Problem:  Everyone can see the common zone -- good.
      Noone can find the FastPath in that zone--bad.
      Our Mail*Link smtp daemon cannot get mail to send to the 
           LT-based Inbox message centers--very bad.
      (Simply put:  The bridges will not forward to or from the FP)

Solution: A Shiva techie is "thinking" about and will get back
      to me, but does it sound feasible?  Has anyone done it?
      If not, with all the smarts of the FP, why can't it?

Alternative: I just found out the Shiva EtherGate is finalizing
      Beta for its TCP/IP software.  This has ports for two LT
      zones and one Ethernet zone.  Puts our FP and the two NetBr's
      into one box that _will_ do what we need!  Now that is an answer!  
      Too bad we didn't know a month ago--a waste of time and money.

So please, if you know anything about this, let me know.  With all
the traffic lately, it seems everyone is on the Ether/LocalTalk/Email/
Telnet/FTP bandwagon, so posting is probably ok.  Email is easy, too.

Thanks, I hope.

David V. Baker
Intermetrics, Inc.
dvb@inmet.inmet.com