Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-sem!ron From: ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie ) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Beginner networking questions Message-ID: <685@brl-sem.ARPA> Date: Mon, 9-Mar-87 20:27:37 EST Article-I.D.: brl-sem.685 Posted: Mon Mar 9 20:27:37 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Mar-87 07:03:08 EST References: <1612@bunker.UUCP> <679@brl-sem.ARPA> <1021@mtune.ATT.COM> Organization: Electronic Brain Research Lab Lines: 23 In article <1021@mtune.ATT.COM>, jhc@mtune.ATT.COM (Jonathan Clark) writes: > In article <679@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie ) writes: > >The TCP/IP on the EXCELAN board is INFERIOR. > > Perhaps you could expand on this comment? I have SV and therefore am > pretty much stuck, short of going to v9 and using the streams IP/TCP > driver. Comparisons with the CMC board? > -- Well, first, when compared to the native 4.2 TCP code it is underwelming. There is no real reason not to do it in software. Now for machines that do not have software TCP available, boards like the Excelan and CMCs are the only way to go. I haven't had any experience with the CMC board, but they seem to be a much sharper company. The Excelan boards went through a number of different problems with the firmware. Most of these were supposed to have been resolved (at least it no longer crashes when it receives packets from off the local net), however, our Silicon Graphics Iris processors have these boards still. We have one 310 system with a CMC board and its been pretty well scrutinized by one of the TCP experts, and he doesn't have much problmes with it. -Ron