berger@datacube.UUCP (09/08/87)
Looking for recommendations and suggestions on a Ethernet - TCP/IP
Serial port sever. These are the gadets that concentrate and connect
several RS-232 ports to a TCP/IP ethernet backbone. We have a
network of Sun's, Pyramid, generic 68020 Unix and OS-9 systems as
well as PC's on our network. We have run out of genric serial ports
and are looking at this as a mechanism to distribute serial ports
around the company.
We have an immediate need for additional ports, but we are thinking
that for the mondo growth we are experiencing that we will
standardize on using these concentrators for connecting serial ports
to various Unix boxes. Is this a good idea? The serial port traffic
is primairly terminals but a chunk of the traffic is high speed
binary download modules.
We are looking at the Encore Annex, the Cisco ASM Communications
Server and the Micom Ethernet Terminal Server. Are there others out
there worth looking at? Are there known good/bad things about the
above devices? I'm looking for tips, hints and experiences. Please
send via E-Mail and I will synopsize to the net.
Bob Berger
Datacube Inc. Systems / Software Group 4 Dearborn Rd. Peabody, Ma 01960
VOICE: 617-535-6644; FAX: (617) 535-5643; TWX: (710) 347-0125
UUCP: berger@datacube.COM, rutgers!datacube!berger
{seismo,cbosgd,cuae2,mit-eddie}!mirror!datacube!bergerron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (09/09/87)
I have direct experience with the following servers:
CISCO ASM
Bridge CS-whatever
Ungerman/Bass NIU-180
CISCO ASM: This box is nice. It's our mainstay at Rutgers. It supports
Domain Name Server look-ups of host names. The price is a bit high for small
implemenations as you get a box that can probably hold over 100 lines. CISCO
is working on an smaller eight line version at a substantially chepaer price.
Very Reliable. You can set configuration either by non volatile memory board
in the box (optional) or by automatic tftp of the file. Software bootable
from ROM's or via tftp.Ability to milk (connect to computers) but these
connections must use a different port than "telnet" as internet addresses
apply to the entire box. You can also telnet to the box to check the status
or even telnet out again from there. There is a provision for restricting
classes of terminals to particular hosts and networks.
BRIDGE CS-*: Pretty flexible. Bridge equipment is fairly reliable but they
don't always get the protocols right. The box also broadcasts bogus datagrams
every 30 seconds or so, but this seems to be benign. Available with various
numbers of terminals. Does not answer ICMP echos. Control is done via a
"udp" telnet like protocol or by locally attached terminal. No security,
anybody can connect to the box. Can also be used as a milking machine. Boots
off floppy disk or from CS server depeding on system.
Ungermann/Bass NIU-180 Terminal Server: Eight lines (30 line version rumored
to be comming out). Nice eight line box. We had problems with it for a
while, but they seem to have gotten their act in gear. Box is the most
flexible. Outgoing (user telnet) or incoming (milking) available on a port by
port basis. Each line may have it's own address. Just about every feature or
thing that you would want to change can be defined on a line by line basis.
Doesn't use the domain name server (yet) but does use an IEN116 server.
Configuration must be done on a PC running their network monitoring software
which is also required to boot the device.
And now a few that I've not used (much):
Encore Annex: 16 lines, fairly nice. UNIX-like feel to it. Supports
Rlogin. Does not use any kind of name server. Nasty rumor is that it
wiretaps rwho packets to load the host name cache. This is a serious
deficiency. Has some smarts for off-loading stuff like GNU EMACS edit
work into the server.
CMC: CMC gets an award for the neatest packaging. This terminal server
is not much larger than a standard DEC Ethernet transceiver but has a row
of RJ11's for the RS-232 connections. This would be real nice for wiring
up buildings as it could just hang on the cable due to it's size, but they
also do not use anysort of name server. Hosts must be manually entered into
their table.
and just for jollies:
BBN-TAC: Available in configurations of 16-64 lines. Doesn't use a
name server. Doesn't use names. 1822 interface supported. NCP protocol
also available in some locations. 64 byte window sometimes causes problems.
Very expensive.narten@percival.cs.purdue.edu (Thomas Narten) (09/10/87)
In article <14575@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: > >And now a few that I've not used (much): > >Encore Annex: 16 lines, fairly nice. UNIX-like feel to it. Supports >Rlogin. Does not use any kind of name server. Nasty rumor is that it >wiretaps rwho packets to load the host name cache. This is a serious >deficiency. Has some smarts for off-loading stuff like GNU EMACS edit >work into the server. We have a couple of annex boxes, and the versions we have do support the nameserver. They also listen to routes advertised via RIP, and I believe we finally did get them to understand static routes. Your comments about the rwho nonsense are true for an earlier version we ran. Thats not to say they work perfectly. We have some problems when we configure them to understand modem control. I am not sure whether the software we are running is a an official release or what. In any case, don't discount them without first checking into them. -- Thomas Narten narten@cs.purdue.edu or {ihnp4, allegra}!purdue!narten
danq@sag4.BERKELEY.EDU (Daniel Quinlan) (09/10/87)
We use an annex 16-port box with a network of suns. After some initial difficulties, it has been running with no problems for several months. It does use the name server which came with Sun's 3.3. It is packaged nicely, rather compact, and has the advantage (if you will have several) that it can be configured and booted from a program on the host. The two disadvantages are a) it uses 9-pin connectors, rather than standard 25 pin and b) you can't tell whether people are using it from the configuration program -- this makes it somewhat inconvenient for rebooting. When we compared it to the Bridge box a year and a half ago, the annex was more reliable. Daniel Quinlan Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berke ROa
giebelhaus@hi-csc.UUCP (Timothy R. Giebelhaus) (09/10/87)
You may want to look at Bridges using their new TCP 20,000. We have been using Bridge for a number of years. We plan to finally convert from Bridge XNS to Bridge TCP when the TCP 20,000 is released.
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (09/12/87)
In article <5054@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, danq@sag4.BERKELEY.EDU (Daniel Quinlan) writes: > It does use the name server which came with Sun's 3.3. It is packaged > nicely, rather compact, and has the advantage (if you will have several) > that it can be configured and booted from a program on the host. The two > disadvantages are a) it uses 9-pin connectors, rather than standard 25 > pin and b) you can't tell whether people are using it from the configuration > program -- this makes it somewhat inconvenient for rebooting. > When we compared it to the Bridge box a year and a half ago, the annex > was more reliable. Yup. We run all out terminals through the Annex box at 38,400 bps and have never had any sort of trouble. The only inconvenience is that one cannot ask the Annex whether there are any users using it currently - as stated above. The software is being updated about 4 times a year - and there aren't just bug fixes. Each new release contain *real* new features. The latest release I installed included a complete security server with access rights and passwords at several levels. I haven't had time to try it, but from the manual it seems well tought-out. The next release is said to include much improved printer support - I can hardly wait... In short - a good buy. -- Robert Claeson, System Administrator, PVAB, Box 4040, S-171 04 Solna, Sweden eunet: robert@pvab uucp: sun!enea!pvab!robert
loverso@encore.UUCP (John LoVerso) (09/17/87)
In article <14575@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: > And now a few that I've not used (much): > > Encore Annex: 16 lines, fairly nice. UNIX-like feel to it. Supports > Rlogin. Does not use any kind of name server. Nasty rumor is that it > wiretaps rwho packets to load the host name cache. This is a serious > deficiency. Has some smarts for off-loading stuff like GNU EMACS edit > work into the server. Just to correct a few things: Since February we've been sending out Annex releases that support both IEN116 and Bind name servers. The Annex does run a listen-only rwhod that will update the host name cache, which is also updated by name server responses. The cache is used to provide minimum uniqueness matching on hostnames. We support routing via routed and ICMP redirects (the current release includes 4.3 TCP/IP, 99% straight from the 4.3 release tape). We support rlogin, outgoing telnet, incoming telnet (to provide a milking capability), and a proprietary remote device protocol for Annexes used to connect to Multimax computers. The later is only in Annex-MX's and actually uses SysV and 4.2 BSD tty drivers in the Annex. Configuration is done via EEPROM, and booting/dumping is accomplished via a Courier-like ERPC. As for the smarts for editting, the LEAP protocol is actually a smart editting front-end which can be adapted to any host editor. John LoVerso, Encore Computer Corp loverso@multimax.arpa, encore!loverso