Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!SUN.COM!melohn
From: melohn@SUN.COM (Bill Melohn)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Sun routers...
Message-ID: <8708272316.AA02140@sluggo.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 27-Aug-87 19:16:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: sluggo.8708272316.AA02140
Posted: Thu Aug 27 19:16:46 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 14:15:13 EDT
References: <8708270241.AA17670@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 53

>We expect our gateways to be up all the time.  Normal timesharing
>systems are taken down periodically for PM, software installation,
>etc.  Our gateways (cisco) download software from a server.  Going to
>a new release requires downtime of about 30 seconds.  Suns typically
>require a good deal longer than this to bring up new releases.  Some
>sites also take them down for backups, and now and then they crash
>(though in honesty I'd have to say that our Suns are very stable).
>I believe that the operational requirements of a gateway are at least
>slightly inconsistent with those of a host.

This is historically a reasonable arguement, especially when dealing
with large host systems that support timesharing or other loads.
Within our own internal network we have many dedicated gateway
machines with no local file system to backup whose uptime is regularly
measured in weeks. Our network is built mostly out of file server
machines with two ethernet interfaces; these are maintained by a
central support staff, and support both diskless clients and
internetworking connectivity. Having several gateways between each
network distributes the load and increases the redundancy if any
particular node fails.  A diskless Sun running as a dedicated network
server offers much the same network-loadable gateway capability as a
cisco box at approximetly the same cost, albeit both the client and
its server must be reliable. 

>
>If you are building a large or complex network, the vendors whose
>business is making routers are likely to have better routing
>technology than routed, to support a wider variety of media, (As an
>example, we tried to interface our Sun to the Arpanet and found that
>although 1822 interfaces existed, we couldn't find anyone who knew how
>to get them.), and to be more aggressive about supporting new network
>monitoring standards.

Here, I take strong exception to your statements! Pardon the
commercial, but I don't know of any gateway box vendor who supports
the range of media AND protocols that Sun currently supports. We run
IP over Ethernet, Token bus, and load-shared sync connections; we
offer gateways to DECnet, OSI, SNA, etc. We have had an DDN gateway
product for almost a year, supporting both 1822 and X.25.  We are
actively involved in both Internet and OSI protocol committees, and as
standards emerge that replace routed, EGP, and friends, we will have
products that implement those standards.

>
>In the long run, there are going to be performance advantages.  At
>the moment, Suns probably perform at least as well at connecting
>Ethernets as the typical dedicated routers.
>

Sun continues to be very agressive in delivering multiple MIPS at the
lowest cost per MIP in the business. The technology that brings forth
low cost high powered workstations can also be used just as
effectively for high speed internet gateways.