morgan@jessica.stanford.edu (08/15/90)
I understand that cisco has committed to having synchronous PPP in its
routers for a near-future release.
1. How about async PPP in its terminal servers?
2. Do other cisco users feel strongly about having it in soon?
3. Are there still stumbling blocks, undefined areas, etc, that would
make an async PPP implementation difficult or impossible?
Thanks,
- RL "Bob" Morgan
Networking Systems
Stanfordsmb@ulysses.att.com (08/15/90)
I understand that cisco has committed to having synchronous PPP in its routers for a near-future release. 1. How about async PPP in its terminal servers? 2. Do other cisco users feel strongly about having it in soon? 3. Are there still stumbling blocks, undefined areas, etc, that would make an async PPP implementation difficult or impossible? We very much want to see async PPP in the server. --Steve Bellovin
forster@cisco.com (Jim Forster) (08/15/90)
A minor correction to Bob's note: >> I understand that cisco has committed to having synchronous PPP in its >> routers for a near-future release. We've had sync PPP in the router since 8.1, which came out in May. At the time we did the work, only IP was defined for PPP, so that's all we currently support in PPP. I will be interested in what people have to say about Bob's questions. - Jim Forster cisco Systems
prue@venera.isi.edu (08/15/90)
My interest in PPP is for sync IP support. Walt Prue
dfk@cwi.nl (Daniel Karrenberg) (08/15/90)
CISCO should suport PPP on the whole line sync/async router/terminal server as soon as possible and make clear statements on when what is expected to become available. Anything else will make customers unhappy and be counterproductive for CISCO. My priorities are sync - router async - terminal server (for talking to TS users) sync - terminal server (for attaching the server) Since sync-router and sync-server are the same as far as implementation is concerned this comes down to: do sync first, then async. Daniel PS: Of course customers ask everyting .... :-)
jh@tut.fi (Juha Heinanen) (08/19/90)
In article <24747@boulder.Colorado.EDU> smb@ulysses.att.com writes:
We very much want to see async PPP in the server.
If you had it, how would you use it, eg. does async PPP currently
exist in any of the public domain or commercial TCP/IP packages for
PCs or Macs? Until those support async PPP, I don't see much point
for Cisco to implement it in their servers.
-- Juha
--
-- Juha Heinanen, Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland
jh@tut.fi (Internet), tut!jh (UUCP), jh@tut (Bitnet)oberman@amazon.llnl.gov (08/19/90)
In article <JH.90Aug18214744@etana.tut.fi>, jh@tut.fi (Juha Heinanen) writes: > > In article <24747@boulder.Colorado.EDU> smb@ulysses.att.com writes: > > We very much want to see async PPP in the server. > > If you had it, how would you use it, eg. does async PPP currently > exist in any of the public domain or commercial TCP/IP packages for > PCs or Macs? Until those support async PPP, I don't see much point > for Cisco to implement it in their servers. Now that the status of PPP has been elevated, it's time to get some implementations in the field. It's never going to happen if every vendor waits until it is more widely avauiilable before implementing it. ANd I have seen one BSD implementation that I could probably get for my systems quite easily. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.