Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!boulder!daemon
From: BILLW@mathom.cisco.com (WilliamChops Westfield)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re:  LAT-Telnet Translation over Ethernet Media
Message-ID: <25820@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 7 Sep 90 09:19:05 GMT
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Lines: 24


    Hmm. A document from cisco that I just saw says that the CSC/2 [sic]
    processor doesn't do much good in a CGS or MGS.  Do you disagree with
    that?  In my case, the CGSs and MGSs are at the far end of T1 lines.

I assume you mean the csc/3?

Well, the added speed of the csc/3 processor is sort of irrelevant in
the smaller boxes but the 4 meg of memory (vs 1 meg on the csc/2) come
in handy.  Us engineers have this habit of writing lots of code...

Not only that, but them standards comitees keep making standards use
up lots of memory too.  (For example, SPF routing algorthms use more
memory than distance vector algorithms, ISO routes on a per-host
basis instead of a per-net basis, tn3270 takes at least an additional
2k bytes per connection, tcp header compression has to save a bunch
of IP headers for each "interface", and so on.)

4Meg used to seem like a lot of memory.  Now I wish the next generation
of chips would get cheaper faster.

Bill Westfield
cisco Systems.
-------