We're trying to agree on a Network Access Server (NAS, what we all used to call terminal servers) for our NSF-sponsored Rural Datafication Project, which involves working in parnership with state nets in our region to expand dialup infrastructure in CICNet region of the country. We'd like to get some feedback from folks in other regions. We've come down to considering the Livingston Portmaster, the Xyplex MX-1600, and to a lesser extent, the Cisco CS-500 series. Right now we're not considering any other vendors; we're trying to stay with gear that people in the state nets involved in the project have used. The Cisco CS-500 series doesn't match up in terms of hardware and software features, but we've left it on the list because of the installed base. We'll drop it from the list unless we can find out what Cisco's plans are in that area. The Xyplex and the Livingston seem pretty close in terms of features on paper. If anyone is using either of these, can you give us any comments? How have they worked in day-to-day use? How responsive is the vendor? Do the features work as advertised? Would you buy them again? I'm not looking for anything formal or in-depth here; if you'd like to respond privately to me, I can keep your responses private and off the list if you'd like. Also, please restrict your comments to the vendors listed above. There are certainly other vendors out there, but we're trying to avoid a full-blown evaluation of all possible products. I'm particularly interested in learning more about the Xyplex. I know a number of folks who are using the Livingston, but I know less about the Xyplex. Also, if anyone has seen anything in the trade literature about either of these product lines, I'd appreciate any references you can give us. J. Paul Holbrook CICNet Network Services Manager holbrook@cic.net (313) 998-7680
We have been happy with cisco. We tried Xyplex and a couple of others. I recommend that you get the terminal servers in house and try them out before you make any decision. There are many things that don't show up on a spec sheet. We have found that alot depends on exactly what you are doing. We would have put up with some of the Xyplex strangeness to get the 8 wire async lines if we were attaching alot of serial devices. It has been so long since we did the evaluations my comments are pretty general and probably don't apply to current products. Allen Cole University of Utah Computer Center cole@cc.utah.edu 3440 Merrill Engineering Building cole@utahcca.bitnet Salt Lake City, UT 84112 utah-cs!cole (801) 581-8805 On Fri, 10 Dec 1993, Paul Holbrook wrote:
We're trying to agree on a Network Access Server (NAS, what we all used to call terminal servers) for our NSF-sponsored Rural Datafication Project, which involves working in parnership with state nets in our region to expand dialup infrastructure in CICNet region of the country. We'd like to get some feedback from folks in other regions.
We've come down to considering the Livingston Portmaster, the Xyplex MX-1600, and to a lesser extent, the Cisco CS-500 series. Right now we're not considering any other vendors; we're trying to stay with gear that people in the state nets involved in the project have used.
The Cisco CS-500 series doesn't match up in terms of hardware and software features, but we've left it on the list because of the installed base. We'll drop it from the list unless we can find out what Cisco's plans are in that area.
The Xyplex and the Livingston seem pretty close in terms of features on paper.
If anyone is using either of these, can you give us any comments? How have they worked in day-to-day use? How responsive is the vendor? Do the features work as advertised? Would you buy them again?
I'm not looking for anything formal or in-depth here; if you'd like to respond privately to me, I can keep your responses private and off the list if you'd like. Also, please restrict your comments to the vendors listed above. There are certainly other vendors out there, but we're trying to avoid a full-blown evaluation of all possible products.
I'm particularly interested in learning more about the Xyplex. I know a number of folks who are using the Livingston, but I know less about the Xyplex.
Also, if anyone has seen anything in the trade literature about either of these product lines, I'd appreciate any references you can give us.
J. Paul Holbrook CICNet Network Services Manager holbrook@cic.net (313) 998-7680
On Fri, 10 Dec 1993, Paul Holbrook wrote:
We've come down to considering the Livingston Portmaster, the Xyplex MX-1600, and to a lesser extent, the Cisco CS-500 series. Right now we're [...] I'm particularly interested in learning more about the Xyplex. I know a number of folks who are using the Livingston, but I know less about the Xyplex.
Paul, Don't know about the MX-1600, but we've been offering PPP service to our students/faculty/staff using the Xyplex Terminal Server 720 housed in their Network 9000 hubs (using US Robitics Total Control WAN hubs stuffed with v.32bis modems) for about two months and have been very pleased with this combination thus far. regards, Allen Robel Internet: robelr@indiana.edu Network Engineer voice: (812)855-0962 Indiana University FAX: (812)855-8299
participants (3)
-
Allen Cole -
Allen Robel -
Paul Holbrook