jqj@uoregon.uoregon.edu (JQ Johnson) (05/03/88)
Our evolving campus network consists of a set of Ethernets, some of
them linked by IP/XNS routers. In addition, we have a fairly large number
of Bridge CS200 tcp/ip terminal servers. We envision locating terminal
servers scattered throughout campus. The problem is that Bridge
servers can't boot across a gateway. Our solutions seem to be:
(1) buy a Bridge network management/bootstrap unit for each IP
subnet. At $4K or more each, that's pretty expensive.
(2) stop buying Bridge terminal servers. Concentrate all existing
Bridge boxes on the small number of subnets that have NCS
boxes. Buy Annex or cisco (they boot thru gateways) for other
networks.
(3) stop buying Bridge CS200s, and instead buy CS100s or something
with built in floppies for bootstrap. That raises the cost
per line, and puts machines with floppies in telephone closets
all over campus -- a maintenance headache.
(4) figure out a way to boot our CS200s through a gateway.
Has anyone out there solved this problem yet?fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) (05/06/88)
What's wrong with option #2 (stop buying Bridge terminal servers)? I didn't see you noting any disadvantages to that. Are the alternatives more expensive or harder to maintain? Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (05/06/88)
Item 2 is correct. Ditch the Bridge boxes and buy terminal servers that use IP to boot. We've had both CISCO and Annex servers here and they both seem to work just fine. CISCO's use TFTPD to boot (actually, they work just fine with the code that is in the ROM's) and the ANNEX box uses they're own boot program but it compiled without problems on our SUN's and Pyramids. -Ron
wilson@laic.UUCP (Robin Wilson) (05/08/88)
Try buying protocol independant bridges (Data Link Bridges). We have a similar problem here with our Ungermann/Bass terminal servers, they won't boot across their routers (which they call remote bridges). At first, we bought boot nodes for each bridged network -- this too can be a maintenance problem. Now we have replaced several of our U/B routers with VitaLink TranLAN Bridges and we can boot across the bridge to the remote sites. Just a suggestion. (By the way I don't recommend the VitaLink unless you have multiple line to the same site, or you have alot of money to throw around, at $17k each they are not cheap.) R.D. Wilson "These views are mine, so get your own."
sob@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (05/08/88)
Bridge is working on making it possible to boot CS/200s though routers.
I am told that that capability will be available in the fall. It will
probably be necessary to upgrade the proms in the CS/200s.
There is also a disk-based CS/200 coming. You should buy that and not
the CS/100 since that technology will not run the latest TCP/IP releases
(yet).
Stan internet: sob@tmc.edu Baylor College of Medicine
Olan uucp: {rice,killer,hoptoad}!academ!sob
Barber Opinions expressed are only mine.hagan@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (John Dotts Hagan) (05/20/88)
In article <1914@uoregon.uoregon.edu> jqj@drizzle.UUCP (JQ Johnson) writes: >Our evolving campus network consists of a set of Ethernets, some of >them linked by IP/XNS routers. In addition, we have a fairly large number >of Bridge CS200 tcp/ip terminal servers. We envision locating terminal >servers scattered throughout campus. The problem is that Bridge >servers can't boot across a gateway. Our solutions seem to be: > . > . > . >Has anyone out there solved this problem yet? If you are stuck with devices that will not boot across a gateway I suggest two solutions: 1) Indeed, stop buying such things. 2) Some routers (like CISCO and WellFleet) claim to be about to bridge selected packets that it cannot route (thus a BROUTER). You could tell the selected gateway to route IP and bridge the packets that the terminal server boots with (I don't know the Ethernet type code). However, I don't know how this will work across a non-ethernet link so be carefull. --Kid.