Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:4914 comp.unix.aux:448
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!purdue!mailrus!wasatch!haas
From: haas@wasatch.UUCP (Walt Haas)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.unix.aux
Subject: Re: tcp-ip terminal servers
Keywords: terminal server tcp ip
Message-ID: <417@wasatch.UUCP>
Date: 17 Oct 88 19:41:24 GMT
References: <337@thor.wright.EDU>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 36

I've been evaluating terminal servers and am not too pleased with the results
so far.  The application I have in mind is a little different from the usual-
I want to put a TCP/IP/Ethernet server back-to-back with a Zenith Z-LAN NCU
so that users of the Z-LAN network can access Ethernet machines and
vice versa.  Therefore the TCP/IP server must simultaneously provide both
modem control and hardware flow control in both directions.  This rules out
use of the cisco ASM and the Encore Annex, sigh, both of which look like
good boxes in most other respects.

3com/Bridge loaned me a CS/1 for evaluation and it does the modem and flow
control fine.  Unfortunately it doesn't support rlogin and refuses to ping
a multihomed host (like, for example, cs.utah.edu).  I talked to the
software support guy at 3com/Bridge about this and his reply was that they
had no plans to support rlogin, and you shouldn't give two IP addresses
to the same host (!).  So from that I think we can safely say that they
can't support their software.

Incidentally I wrote their President a letter asking him to please get
onto the Internet so I wouldn't have to play telephone tag for a week
at a time to talk to his guys.  He never replied to the letter.

Right now I have a Micom/Interlan NTS-100 downstairs to evaluate.  Their
literature says it supports rlogin but I can't fin any sign of rlogin
in the actual firmware - plus there are a slew of obvious bugs.  Probably
I just got an old copy of the firmware but their tech support guys aren't
returning phone calls - at least not with any degree of rapidity.  I know
somebody on the net posts from Interlan - it seems, however, that this is
not known to their management, or at least is not thought of as a way
to support customers, because the local rep has been beating on them to
improve the accessibility of their support and he reports that Micom/
Interlan management isn't even aware that this channel exists.

So would all you folks with brilliant ideas about how to solve this
problem mind coming out of the woodwork with your bright ideas?

Thanks in advance  -- Walt Haas   haas@cs.utah.edu   utah-cs!haas