Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!emory!utkcs2!ornl.gov!wnn
From: wnn@ornl.gov (Wolfgang N. Naegeli)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: AppleTalk Internet Router Performance (was: Re: phase 2 with CAP/KIP)
Message-ID: <1990Aug20.162629.13928@cs.utk.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 90 16:26:29 GMT
Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Univ. of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Lab.
Lines: 66
References:<2687293@AppleLink.Apple.COM> <1990Aug9.134900.215@cs.utk.edu> <66709@coherent.coherent.com> <1990Aug16.173333.1050@cs.utk.edu> <44035@apple.Apple.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  -- that's me! --) 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."

-----

In article <44035@apple.Apple.COM> hayes@Apple.COM (Jim Hayes) writes
referring to my response to the above:
> Regarding the Apple Internet Router, Wolfgang Naegeli (wnn@ornl.gov) 
writes:
> 
> >How limited is the throughput if I run it on a IIfx?  I suspect it 
might 
> >beat a FastPath, GatorBox, or MultiGate.
> 
>     LocalTalk to LocalTalk -and-
>     LocalTalk to EtherTalk -and-
>     LocalTalk to TokenTalk on the Mac IIx *and above* route at the same 
speeds.
>     This is simply because LocalTalk is the bottleneck, so an fx is 
probably
>     overkill here...
> 
>     You get about 12k/sec routing LocalTalk to LocalTalk
>     You get about 22k/sec routing LocalTalk to TokenTalk
>     you get about 23k/sec routing LocalTalk to Ethernet

Well, if LocalTalk is the bottleneck, then dedicated hardware boxes can't 
overcome it either,
i.e. Apple's argument that they don't offer tunneling in UDP (IPTalk) 
because they want to
leave the high-performance field to others, falls apart.

Jim goes on to give some figures that show that the IIfx does make a 
diffference in Ethertalk to Ethertalk routing, though not quite as much as 
one might expect from less-specific published information about its 
performance.

My argument all along has been, that in situations where wide connectivity 
for relatively low traffic is needed, an Apple Internet Router supporting 
TCP/IP routing and perhaps running in the background of an AppleShare cum 
QuickMail server would be a very flexible and cost-effective solution.  We 
have such needs, and I would be surprised if there weren't many other 
places out there for whom this would be an ideal solution too, and that 
Apple is shortsighted not offering it.

It appears that Network Resources Corp. thinks so too.  I'll look into 
MultiGate Mac, and I hope it is as versatile in other respects as Apple's 
Internet Router.

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