jnd@sms.com (Jose Nabielsky) (09/07/90)
I need bidirectional translation between LAT and Telnet over LAN (Ethernet) media. cisco has announced LAT support in the CPT (cisco Protocol Translator) device. Therefore: 1. Will the CPT support Ethernet-Ethernet configurations? (The original CPT was intended for Ethernet-Serial configurations *only*, since it translated between Triple-X and Telnet protocols.) 2. If so, what mappings are available at the CPT to effect the LAT-Telnet translations? Any translation gotchas? 3. The CSC/3 processor seems a win for this application. Is the CSC/3 board available in the CPT configuration? -Jose Nabielsky jnd@sms.com
BILLW@mathom.cisco.com (WilliamChops Westfield) (09/07/90)
I need bidirectional translation between LAT and Telnet over LAN
(Ethernet) media. cisco has announced LAT support in the CPT (cisco
Protocol Translator) device. Therefore:
1. Will the CPT support Ethernet-Ethernet configurations?
Yes. You can buy it with a single ethernet interface now (or, when 8.2
comes out, anyway.) It isn't designed to have LAT and TCP on separate
ethernets - do you think that would be a useful addition? It doesn't
seem like a common configuration for people to have their LAT network
completely distinct from their IP network.
2. If so, what mappings are available at the CPT to effect the
LAT-Telnet translations? Any translation gotchas?
LAT is a pretty trivial protocol. There isn't much to map. Since the
new CPT is just about to start Beta test, we haven't found any gotchas
yet. I'd be surprised if the code were already perfect though. :-)
The command looks something like:
TRANSLATE LAT <servicename> TCP <hostname> [PORT <port>] [QUIET]
[LOGIN] [MAX-USERS <n>]
or
TRANSLATE TCP <hostname> [PORT <port>] LAT <servicename> [QUIET]
[LOGIN] [MAX-USERS <n>]
3. The CSC/3 processor seems a win for this application. Is the
CSC/3 board available in the CPT configuration?
It is (or will be). Everyone should buy csc/3 processors with everything
they get nowdays. The price difference is so much lower than the upgrade
cost that it's almost embarrassing.
Bill Westfield
cisco Systems.
-------RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fajman) (09/07/90)
> 3. The CSC/3 processor seems a win for this application. Is the > CSC/3 board available in the CPT configuration? > > It is (or will be). Everyone should buy csc/3 processors with everything > they get nowdays. The price difference is so much lower than the upgrade > cost that it's almost embarrassing. > > Bill Westfield > cisco Systems. Hmm. A document from cisco that I just saw says that the CSC/2 processor doesn't do much good in a CGS or MGS. Do you disagree with that? In my case, the CGSs and MGSs are at the far end of T1 lines.
BILLW@mathom.cisco.com (WilliamChops Westfield) (09/07/90)
Hmm. A document from cisco that I just saw says that the CSC/2 [sic]
processor doesn't do much good in a CGS or MGS. Do you disagree with
that? In my case, the CGSs and MGSs are at the far end of T1 lines.
I assume you mean the csc/3?
Well, the added speed of the csc/3 processor is sort of irrelevant in
the smaller boxes but the 4 meg of memory (vs 1 meg on the csc/2) come
in handy. Us engineers have this habit of writing lots of code...
Not only that, but them standards comitees keep making standards use
up lots of memory too. (For example, SPF routing algorthms use more
memory than distance vector algorithms, ISO routes on a per-host
basis instead of a per-net basis, tn3270 takes at least an additional
2k bytes per connection, tcp header compression has to save a bunch
of IP headers for each "interface", and so on.)
4Meg used to seem like a lot of memory. Now I wish the next generation
of chips would get cheaper faster.
Bill Westfield
cisco Systems.
-------satz@cisco.com (Greg Satz) (09/07/90)
The primary reason for getting a CSC/3 processor is for the larger memory. A CSC/2 processor will work just fine in the MGS and CGS boxes provided the routing tables don't grow too large. If you are passing around the entire catenet and you are running lots of different protocols, you may experience some memory congestion when the software is running out of RAM. This is more a function of the environment outside of the chassis then the actual chassis itself. We also have software that will run from ROM leaving all of RAM available for routing tables, etc. This will allow the CSC/2 processor to function for some time to come. Greg
hugh@cisco.com (Hugh Metzler) (09/08/90)
I have seen alot of questions whether we do Novell to TCP/IP for what its worth!! Hugh
jrugo@nic.near.net (09/10/90)
Greg, In planning for the future on the Internet, would you advise purchase of CSC-3 both for the number of routes and transition to new protocols such as ISO? - John
jnd@sms.com (Jose Nabielsky) (09/11/90)
Bill, > 1. Will the CPT support Ethernet-Ethernet configurations? > > Yes. You can buy it with a single ethernet interface now (or, when 8.2 > comes out, anyway.) It isn't designed to have LAT and TCP on separate > ethernets - do you think that would be a useful addition? It doesn't > seem like a common configuration for people to have their LAT network > completely distinct from their IP network. > The environment in question runs DECNet and TCP/IP over physically- and administratively-separate ethernets. (Although these ethernets are colocated within the same building.) I *do not* intend to characterize other people's network environments, but it seems peculiar that cisco sees *local* Ethernet-Ethernet translations different from *remote* Ethernet-Serial translations. That is, I propose a CPT product whose translation functions are decoupled from the type and number of network interfaces, allowing nE+mS configurations. Let the customer vote with his dollars. (If the customer needs Ethernet-Ethernet, the CSC-2E will do the trick; if the customer needs Ethernet-Serial, today's CPT-standard CSC-1E1S will do.) -Jose (jnd@sms.com)