fair@apple.com (Erik E. Fair) (11/13/90)
I am in the market for a device that will do two things: 1. Accept X.25 calls and then allow outbound connections to TELNET servers on an Internet. 2. Accept inbound TCP connections, and then allow outbound X.25 calls to destinations on an X.25 network. In effect, I want a protocol coverter for remote login protocols. It would also be nice to be able to restrict who can use this network resource through some kind of access control and/or password mechanism. I'd like the TCP implementation to behave well on the Internet, although the majority of time it will be used for local ethernet connections. I'd like the X.25 implementation to be as completely configurable as possible, given the rather wide variations in X.25 service providers in the U.S. I have two promising candidates so far: the cisco Systems Protocol Converter the Datability Vista VCP-1000 This posting is to request information from the assembled multitudes of the network: 1. If any of you have purchased either or both of the above named devices, I'd love to hear accolades, curses, etc. relating to your experiences with them. 2. Who have I missed? Are there other products which might fill my need in this area? Thanks for your time & trouble, Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com
gwilliam@SH.CS.NET (George Williams) (11/15/90)
In response to this portion of your query: ........ the cisco Systems Protocol Converter the Datability Vista VCP-1000 This posting is to request information from the assembled multitudes of the network: 1. If any of you have purchased either or both of the above named devices, I'd love to hear accolades, curses, etc. relating to your experiences with them. 2. Who have I missed? Are there other products which might fill my need in this area? >>> I believe xni-list@cs.net is the mailing list for additional info. >>> () Third party (b)router people have jumped on the bandwagon with board >>> and standalone router solutions to IP/x.25 that are based on RFC877. >>> >>> - Sun is one you didn't mention above. (RFC877 compliant) >>> >>> - Cisco is another as noted. (RFC877 ditto ) >>> () Cursory research I did in this area regarding interoperabilty between >>> cisco and the SUNLINK product resulted in following input (from cisco) >>> and observations to date: >>> The above information left >>> one to ask: 1) Is your IP over X.25 based on this RFC (877)? > Yes. 2) Will cisco routers talk to this SUN product and if so what has been the user feedback, if any? > Yes; we have customers doing this. Indeed, we will talk to any > machine that is RFC877 compliant. > The feedback is "rather quiet" because it generally works > (unfortunately, feedback is often only received when there > is a problem!) 3) Do you even recommend trying this or is it known there is no compatibility between the two router products ? > Yes -- you should be able to do this. --Joel >>> Thanks to jpbion@cisco.com for above ! >>> () Marketing people from cisco however do not take an official "supported" >>> position for the above. They do say they will talk to "anything" that is >>> DDN X25 compliant,however. >>> () CSNET work is in progress to bring up a SUN to CISCO connection of two ( international and domestic ) PDNs. It appears to be working with most of the problems technical administration ( being worked on ) of VC utilitazion. >>> BTW, there is a known problem with the sunlink product not clearing called "hung" VC's. This I think is being worked on. Good Luck, George Williams Technical Staff CSNET CIC