Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.appletalk:5443 comp.sys.mac.comm:2764 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!dorner From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk,comp.sys.mac.comm Subject: Re: Gatorbox v Fastpath Message-ID: <1991Mar6.142114.27729@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 6 Mar 91 14:21:14 GMT References: <63066@bbn.BBN.COM> <1991Mar5.220625.6493@cns.umist.ac.uk> Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: University of Illinois at U-C Lines: 34 In article <1991Mar5.220625.6493@cns.umist.ac.uk> jf@ap.co.umist.ac.uk (John Forrest) writes: >Would anyone like to advise me on the various merits of >Gatorboxes and Fastpaths. I'm hoping we will get some money to >buy a couple, but it not clear which is the most appropriate. I've dealt with both. Here are the pros and cons I've run into: FastPath PROS: - doesn't need tickling after power outage - configuration application is easier to use FastPath CONS: - the configuration itself is hard; lots of numbered options GatorBox PROS: - the configuration itself is understandable; English words used throughout - NFS->AFP and LPD->PAP translations available at extra cost (if you have UNIX machines, you can use CAP with either box for similar functionality.) - built-in support for IP tunnelling (gatorboxes can talk to each other over IP internets) - very good phone *and email* support GatorBox CONS: - the configuration application is a wee bit weird - requires reload after power failure (can be automated with tftp) Both boxes seem to be pretty reliable in terms of hardware and software. My contact with the boxes is mostly in their AppleTalk<->IP function, only secondarily as AppleTalk routers. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner