Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!bpa!drexel!jeff From: jeff@drexel.UUCP (Jeff White) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: Mac II as bridge to EtherNEt Message-ID: <871@drexel.UUCP> Date: 21 Jan 89 02:40:51 GMT References: Organization: Drexel University, Phila., Pa. Lines: 29 In article , RSILVERMAN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Richard Silverman) writes: > >> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:42 EDT From: > >> Sorry if this question has been asked repeatedly, or is too > >> obvious, but: Can a Mac II with an EtherNet card such as EtherPort II > >> or EtherTalk etc. serve as a bridge for the rest of a local-talk > >> network, or must I use a FastPath or similar box? > > I can see no reason why you couldn't do that; I just don't know of > anyone who has actually written the code. However, I don't see that it would > save you money; even the most expensive FastPath is around $2700; the Mac > II alone is more than that, without the Ethernet card. And once you set it > up as a gateway, it'll be useless for anything else. Or is there something > about the situation I'm not seeing? I'd like to think that this is where the MultiFinder or true multiprocessing in future versions of the Mac OS can come into use. There are a couple of programs that would be nice to have: this proposed appletalk to ethernet gateway, GatePost, a program that takes data from the serial port and routes in onto appletalk, and to some extent file servers like TOPS or AppleShare. These are programs that really aren't best run (even if they can be) in the background on a normal users machine, but which don't require a completely dedicated Mac. But why make the programs capable of running in MultiFinder or multiprocessing mode. Certainly a Mac II (if not IIx or future '030 machine) could handle taks like this. I realize the reason Apple requires a dedicated server for AppleShare, but I'd like to think that other server or gateway programs could also run on the machine at the same time. Jeff White Drexel University - ECE Dept. rutgers!bpa!drexel!jeff