Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!skat.usc.edu!frankc
From: frankc@skat.usc.edu (Frank Callaham III)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: Phase 1 vs. Phase 2
Message-ID: <29515@usc>
Date: 22 Jan 91 20:47:44 GMT
References: <1991Jan17.205340.11378@pbs.org> <48241@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@usc
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

>As for third parties...  While I cannot endorse any third-party
>products, I know of only one high-performance router vendor that routes
>AppleTalk Phase I/II at the theoretical limits of Ethernet: Cisco
>Systems.  We make extensive use their boxes internally along with our
>own Internet Router and a few Kinetics Fastpaths for KIP.
>
>-- 
>Jim Hayes, Network Manager (I manage the hardware, not the network group)
>Engineering Network Services, Apple Computer Inc.
>
>Inet: hayes@apple.com		 UUCP: {amdcad|decwrl|ames}!apple!hayes

I know the "benifits" of Phase II, the problem I have, is that the
Cisco Routers cannot currently route EtherTalk Phase II packets over
a FDDI backbone.(This is according to my net admin.  He says that
apple did something "wrong/strange" with the E-Talk2 packets)

My point is...  It would not be all that difficult to port the phase 1
code to the new card.

Frank Callaham
University of Southern California
Microcomputer Support
frankc@skat.usc.edu
These are my opinions not USC's.  I just happen to work there...