Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!utkcs2!ornl.gov!wnn
From: wnn@ornl.gov (Wolfgang N. Naegeli)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: phase 2 with CAP/KIP
Message-ID: <1990Aug16.173333.1050@cs.utk.edu>
Date: 16 Aug 90 17:33:33 GMT
Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Univ. of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Lab.
Lines: 30
References:<2687293@AppleLink.Apple.COM> <1990Aug9.134900.215@cs.utk.edu> <66709@coherent.coherent.com>

In article <66709@coherent.coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) 
writes:
> In article <1990Aug9.134900.215@cs.utk.edu> wnn@ornl.gov (Wolfgang N. 
Naegeli) writes:
> 
> > And there is another missing link:  TCP/IP routing and AppleTalk in 
UDP 
> > tunneling support by the Apple Internet Router!
> 
> The Apple folks who discussed the Internet Router at the WWDC were asked
> about this.  Their response was along the lines of "No... the Apple
> Internet Router is designed as a basic, limited-throughput router to get
> people started.  We view tunnelling, high-throughput dedicated routers,
> and so forth as appropriate markets for third-party developers."

How limited is the throughput if I run it on a IIfx?  I suspect it might 
beat a FastPath, GatorBox, or MultiGate.
None of which can handle more than one Ethernet cable or route between 
Ethernet and Tokenring.
I might still prefer to use a dedicated hardware box for cost-effective 
high-throughput in many situations, but if I already have a Apple Internet 
Router and there is only one or two users on the LocalTalk side who need 
TCP/IP, spending some $2000 for a hardware box would seem excessive and 
overkill.

Wolfgang N. Naegeli
Internet: wnn@ornl.gov    Bitnet: wnn@ornlstc
Phone: 615-574-6143       Fax: 615-574-6141
QuickMail (QM-QM): Wolfgang Naegeli @ 615-574-4510
Snail:  Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6206