Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ukma!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!NSWC-OAS.ARPA!snorthc
From: snorthc@NSWC-OAS.ARPA
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Ethernet Bridge
Message-ID: <8711061102.AA20140@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 3-Nov-87 15:56:04 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8711061102.AA20140
Posted: Tue Nov  3 15:56:04 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 14:54:48 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 25

James,
	Thank you for the follow up on the Bridge GS/3.  It does seem
that the GS/3 might be one of the weaker links in Bridge's Product suite.
If FTP software did not support reassembly of packets before 1.16
that helps to explain why we could not discern any difference between
its performance* and PCIPs (assuming any packets ever got fragmented).
I do seem to remember FTP v. 1.11 or 1.12's SMTP used to make the
GS/3s complain, 1.14 fixed that.
	While GS/3s on the whole (and at a time there were far less
alternatives available) seemed to work quite well, I do have one war
story.  We had a T1 link connecting two remote geographic sites with
a GS/3 at each end.  Whenever the T1 link went down (often in the boonies)
the GS/3s would go off into space and someone would have to press a
black button on the front of each GS/3.  However Bridge has long since
delivered a s/w upgrade and the morning ritual of resetting the GS-3 has
been retired.
	I wonder who makes the best gateway-in-a-box (this week).

		Stephen Northcutt (snorthc@nswc-g.arpa)

* we have never benchmarked TFTP and rarely use it, another reason we
may not have suffered too much.

Disclaimer: Only relationship between Bridge, FTP s/w and me is I try
to buy what they try to sell.