Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: Farallon StarController restictions
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.135537.22335@phri.nyu.edu>
Date: 11 Jan 91 13:55:37 GMT
References: <10299@pogo.WV.TEK.COM> <42382@ut-emx.uucp>
Sender: news@phri.nyu.edu (News System)
Distribution: na
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Lines: 17

awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes:
> I'm sure that the fact that they'll make serious $ by selling one SC per 12
> devices doesn't enter the picture at all.  (Actually, they want to sell 1 per
> 11, with the 12th port used to connect to the next SC.  "How conveeeenient.")

	I am pretty sure the limitation is one device per *branch*, and you
are allowed 4 branches per port (one on each of the 4 pairs of punchdown
terminals).  That makes it 48 (or 44) devices per SC.  By the time you have
that many devices on one LocalTalk segment, you will probably want to start
looking into traffic-filtering bridges to segregate your network into
smaller pieces anyway, so I don't consider the device-count limitation to
really be that severe.
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane?  Did you say arcane?  It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"