jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) (08/19/90)
In article <9008142108.AA03724@jade.berkeley.edu> of mail.sun-nets, 42-5360)CLIFF%edu (CLIFF <(Cliff Frost {415})) writes: >Has anyone had any experience using SLIP and/or PPP from a Sun >(a 3/50 or SPARCstation) at 56 or 64Kbits/sec? I'm interested >in using one of the serial ports to do this. To extend, has anyone written software to talk to Cisco routers at 64 kbits/sec ? I understand that Cisco's support SLIP, but can that be run at 64 kbit/s ? I suppose the protocol Cisco routers use to talk to each other is not any standard protocol but Cisco's own. Are the protocol specs available ? If not, would Cisco object to someone reverse-engineering the protocol ? A local PTT here offers a service to connect company LANs together with Cisco routers; if a general-purpose Unix machine could talk the Cisco protocol and route the traffic (perhaps also DECNET traffic) one could save the money needed to buy the Cisco router. Well, perhaps I shouldn't have said that because I suppose it's not in the best interests of Cisco ;-) //Jyrki
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/19/90)
In article <1990Aug18.225126.3678@santra.uucp> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes: >To extend, has anyone written software to talk to Cisco routers at 64 >kbits/sec ? I understand that Cisco's support SLIP, but can that be >run at 64 kbit/s ? There is no reason why you couldn't run SLIP at FDDI bit rates, should you really want to. :-) I'd guess that 64kbaud is synchronous rather than async, in which case SLIP's applicability is a bit more dubious, but the idea is not impossible even so. >I suppose the protocol Cisco routers use to talk to each other is not >any standard protocol but Cisco's own... In the long run they will probably use PPP, I would think. What they use *now* is a different question; it may well be proprietary. -- It is not possible to both understand | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry