Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!voder!berlioz.nsc.com!dunkin!my
From: my@dunkin.nsc.com (Michael Yip)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: FDDI Concentrators
Keywords: FDDI
Message-ID: <1991Jun11.145916.19344@berlioz.nsc.com>
Date: 11 Jun 91 14:59:16 GMT
References: <1575@nih-csl.nih.gov>
Sender: my@dunkin (Michael Yip)
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation
Lines: 30



In article <1575@nih-csl.nih.gov>, merike@alw.nih.gov (Merike Kaeo) writes:
|> Am looking for real-life experiences with implementing FDDI concentrators,
|> specifically the ones from Network Systems Corp.  Know of 7 other vendors (AT&T,
|> DEC, Timeplex, Synernetics, Summit Microsystems Corp., Interphase Corp. and
|> Network Peripherals, In|> c.) Would be interested in hearing why someone chose one
|> product over the other.....are people just choosing the least expensive, the one
|> that's been on the market the longest(sense of reliability for new technology),
|> the only dual-MAC implementation


I know that Optical Data System (ODS) in Texas and SynOptics Communication in
California are both selling large modular FDDI concentrators.  Their concentrators
have 3 MACs (dual-MACs plus an additional Roving MAC) and with a capacity of
up to 60(?) Ports.  Give them a call.

In chosing a concentrator, you might want to seperate concentrators into
two groups.  One is small workgroup type of concentrators (8-16 Ports) and
the other is the large backbone type of concentrators (40-80 Ports) for the
whole building.

In a workgroup concentrator, you might just want to pick the least expensive
ones.  But for the large ones, I think that you should pick one that can be
expand easily and also has VERY high fault tolerance.  Oh, live insertion of
boards might be useful also.  (Live insertion will not bring down the whole
network if you need to exchange only one of the board.)

-- Mike Yip
   my@berlioz.nsc.com