Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!umix!nancy!eecae!super.upenn.edu!scotty.dccs.upenn.edu!hagan
From: hagan@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (John Dotts Hagan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: routers vs Bridge CS200s?
Message-ID: <4701@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu>
Date: 20 May 88 05:20:18 GMT
References: <1914@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
Sender: news@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu
Reply-To: hagan@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (John Dotts Hagan)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 24

In article <1914@uoregon.uoregon.edu> jqj@drizzle.UUCP (JQ Johnson) writes:
>Our evolving campus network consists of a set of Ethernets, some of
>them linked by IP/XNS routers.  In addition, we have a fairly large number
>of Bridge CS200 tcp/ip terminal servers.  We envision locating terminal
>servers scattered throughout campus.  The problem is that Bridge
>servers can't boot across a gateway.  Our solutions seem to be:
>   .
>   .
>   .
>Has anyone out there solved this problem yet?


If you are stuck with devices that will not boot across a gateway I suggest
two solutions:

1) Indeed, stop buying such things.

2) Some routers (like CISCO and WellFleet) claim to be about to bridge
   selected packets that it cannot route (thus a BROUTER).  You could tell
   the selected gateway to route IP and bridge the packets that the terminal
   server boots with (I don't know the Ethernet type code).  However, I don't
   know how this will work across a non-ethernet link so be carefull.

--Kid.