Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!U!DAHLEN From: bdahlen@ZEPHYR.CAIR.DU.EDU (Robert L. Dahlen @ U. of Denver USA=) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.novell Subject: Re: TCP/IP gateways Message-ID: <9001102200.AA16621@zephyr.cair.du.edu> Date: 10 Jan 90 21:00:02 GMT Sender: Novell LAN Interest Group Reply-To: Novell LAN Interest Group Lines: 23 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13] X-To: NOVELL%SUVM@pucc.princeton.edu In-Reply-To: <9001101629.AA24886@nike.cair.du.edu>; from "Peter Bombace" at Jan 10, 90 10:48 am > Does nayone have experience with the TCP/IP gateways that run inside > the server? I'm investigating ways of connecting our LAN's to our IP > backbone, and it looks as though we will go that route rather than the > packet driver. Experiences and prices would be extremely helpful. > > According to our research, we are going to use Wollongong's TCP/IP Gateway. (We just haven't found the money to do the whole deal as we want to yet.) For our purposes it seems more reliable and more expandable. (The MICOM/INTERLAN NP-600 keeps getting bad reports, and since our servers stay up for months at a time we'd like to keep them that way.) I have not seen the Wollongong solution work in real life, I assume it does, but no one is using it in Colorado that I know of. I`ll be interested in your findings. Good luck. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert L. Dahlen - Director, Information Systems & Technology University of Denver - Denver, Colorado 80208 (303) 871-4385 INET:bdahlen@du.edu BITNET:bdahlen@ducair UUCP:ncar!dunike!bdahlen