COM1CURT@UCSBVM.BITNET (Curt Mosso (CGM) (805)893-4044) (05/11/91)
Depending on whom I ask, I get conflicting answers on whether I can use a cisco terminal server or a cisco gateway to access another network using SLIP. Is anyone actually connecting two full networks running SLIP on a cisco terminal server or gateway? If so, how are you doing it? Thank you, in advance. Curt
fair@apple.com (Your Friendly Postmaster) (05/11/91)
The cisco terminal servers will not do it with the existing software; they will only handle end-hosts. Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com
BILLW@mathom.cisco.com (WilliamChops Westfield) (05/11/91)
Depending on whom I ask, I get conflicting answers on whether I can
use a cisco terminal server or a cisco gateway to access another
network using SLIP.
Is anyone actually connecting two full networks running SLIP on a
cisco terminal server or gateway? If so, how are you doing it?
The official word from cisco is that it doesn't work. It can be made
to work on the "trouter" combination router/terminal server (two
interfaces, 16 terminal lines), but the terminal server code is only
capable of associating a single IP address with each async line, and
te IP destination of the packets has to match that for the packet to
get forwarded to SLIP...
Bill Westfield
cisco Systems.
-------dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (05/11/91)
In article <34978@boulder.Colorado.EDU> BILLW@mathom.cisco.com (WilliamChops Westfield) writes: >The official word from cisco is that it doesn't work. It can be made >to work on the "trouter" combination router/terminal server (two >interfaces, 16 terminal lines), but the terminal server code is only >capable of associating a single IP address with each async line, and >te IP destination of the packets has to match that for the packet to >get forwarded to SLIP... Which is a real shame. The Encore/Xylogics Annex has had this capability for a long time. I had my (admittedly tiny) home ethernet on the other end of a Annex SLIP line with full reachability for about two years before I upgraded from SLIP to a faster net interface. I'd really like to extend the same courtesy to others, but my STS-10X can't hack it, for what appear to me to be purely marketing reasons. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
William "Chops" Westfield <BILLW@mathom.cisco.com> (05/12/91)
[cisco doesnt support gateway style slip]
Which is a real shame. The Encore/Xylogics Annex has had this
capability for a long time. I had my (admittedly tiny) home
ethernet on the other end of a Annex SLIP line with full
reachability for about two years before I upgraded from SLIP to a
faster net interface. I'd really like to extend the same
courtesy to others, but my STS-10X can't hack it, for what appear
to me to be purely marketing reasons.
In retrospect, I am inclined to agree. It's not exactly marketing's
fault though. Being the first TS vendor to implement SLIP, we (I)
had to make a design decision. cisco had a slightly different view
of the world than Encore, having for one very larger terminal servers
(96 lines) and also having a router product line. This meant that
we had to do a sort of all-or-nothing implementation of routing, if
we wanted to do SLIP routing. This was before SUNs were affordable
home computers, and before telebit came along and revolutionized the
modem marketplace. PC ethernet cards were at least $500. We (I)
figured that SLIP would primarilly be used as a cheap way to connect
PCs to networks. I found the thought of a 96 port router and the
associated number of routing updates and so on a troubling thought,
and we (I) decided not to support routing over the SLIP links. We
figured people who really wanted to connect to networks together
woud spring for routers and the (then) more efficient synchronous
serial interface.
Now, the market has shown us (and me) to have been insufficiently
foresighted. Unfortunately, the old implementation now has momentum,
sort of, and continues. If you are somewhat patient, you may see
interesting changes in this area, but I don't think the STS10 has
enough oomph to be a real router in todays networks...
Bill Westfield
cisco Systems.
-------