Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!TRANTOR.UMD.EDU!louie
From: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU ("Louis A. Mamakos")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Fibronics TCP/IP/Ethernet for IBM mainframe
Message-ID: <8712221626.AA02583@trantor.UMD.EDU>
Date: 22 Dec 87 16:26:47 GMT
References: <8712220038.AA15289@gr.utah.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 11

I've used both a Fibronics K200 and a K320, but on a UNIVAC/Sperry/UniSys 1100
mainframe system.  We bought the K200, and have a K320 on loan in a beta test
mode.  Personally, I prefer the K200.  It seems to have good performence, and
costs less than the K320.   However, the K320 is "smart" and programmable.  By
default, the K320 emulates a K200, but in the future can/could be upgraded to
do processing and offload the host.  We don't need that capability.

We wrote our own TCP/IP implementation for the 1100 series;  I have no 
experience with the KNET package.

louie