kiessig@fortune.UUCP (11/03/83)
Has anyone out there heard of NS or Courier implementations for UNIX? Rick
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/10/83)
Here are two vendors that do XNS for UNIX: Fusion, from Network Research orp in LA, (213) 474-7717 Bridge Communications, Silicon Valley, (408) 446-2981 (not really for UNIX, but plug-in to various ports or multibus) I don't know if either are any good. Fusion has a few application programs (file transfer, remote login, printer, random) which probably do not conform to any particular standard. Bridge has gateways over ethernet and X.25 but seems to offer nothing higher level than transport.
sanders@menlo70.UUCP (Rex Sanders) (11/15/83)
I don't have the mfr literature at home to verify, but I believe Interlan is at least promising XNS for Unix. Also, just today I read in Byte about 3Com using Vax/Unix systems as fileservers for their IBM PC/Ethernet setup. Since the PC talks XNS, I presume they must be doing some form of XNS for Vax/Unix. This means that 3Com is supporting both TCP/IP and XNS on Vax/Unix systems. Can't they make up their minds? -- Rex ucbvax!menlo70!sanders
chuqui@cae780.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/17/83)
Bridge Communications, Silicon Valley, (408) 446-2981 (not really for UNIX, but plug-in to various ports or multibus) I don't know if either are any good. Bridge has gateways over ethernet and X.25 but seems to offer nothing higher level than transport. When I looked rather carefully at Bridge a few months ago, they were limited to transport layer only. They were doing development on a Vax, but they couldn't even use their own ethernet to download software into their boxes for testing (their ethernet boxes use 68K machines). At that time their system looked like a good way to connect things together when you had a number of users and a number of machines that needed to connect in relatively random ways. It was possible to get one machine to connect to another machine and transfer files, but that software was up to the user. (Bridge's system, the CS/1, talked from RS232 to RS232 across an ethernet. It did not talk to (for example) an ethernet board in a vax. In this months (November) Mini-Micro systems, they are announcing their CS/100, which is a single board (and cheaper) version of the CS/1. It seems to be able to support 10 RS-232 lines, where the CS/1 supports up to 32. They also mention optional software for file transfer for major OS's (CP/M, MS-Dos, VMS, and Unix) that they didn't have before. This is probably at the application level on the machine (since connection still seems to be through RS-232), but at least its there. I was impressed with the engineering and (from what I saw) stability of their systems. My only quibble at that time was that it seemed like a rather expensive way to put together a port contender system. Now with the FTP software, it becomes much more general purpose (and with the CS/1, less expensive). -- From the dungeons of the warlock: amd70!cae780!chuqui Chuqui the Plaid *pif*
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (11/21/83)
Is there any reason to believe that Bridge's FTP will talk to anybody else's FTP (past, present, or future) on XNS? That is, did they roll their own or is there some use of a standard in there?
chuqui@cae780.UUCP (11/22/83)
I believe the Bridge rolled their own. Their main design assumption was
that they are the only devices on the net. I believe they claim that they
will not interfere with other devices sharing the net (assuming they keep
to the proper protocols) but they also don't communicate with them.
--
>From the dungeons of the warlock: amd70!cae780!chuqui
Chuqui the Plaid *pif*