North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Terminal Servers (was Re: netblazer Was: baiting)
Netblazers were fine except the Telebit lied about the SYN35 card being usable with a T-1. Bad terminal servers? How about overpriced ones like the USR Total Control Hubs. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E.Seastrom" <[email protected]> To: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[email protected]> Cc: "Hannigan, Martin" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:10 Subject: Re: netblazer Was: baiting > > > Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email protected]> writes: > > > In this period of time, the White Knights built the InterOp shownets and > > we had comparative access to quite a lot of vendor product, and know that > > the red buttons on Wellfleets were correctly positioned on the front, for > > easy access. We used NetBlazers for dial-up outbound (we were topologically > > quite diverse by '91, our last show in the San Jose facility) and I don't > > recall anything ... resembling the behavior that I could characterize as > > POS like function. > > My recollection of that show was "T-1 to BARRnet", not > bonded-Netblazer-dialout, but I didn't "work the show" until the > following spring, so my recollection could be at fault. > > I wouldn't characterize Netblazers as being particularly cruddy > compared to other options available at the time. Remember that this > was the era of the Cisco ASM, the Encore/Xylogics Annex (Wellfleet > hadn't changed their name to Bay yet, much less bought the Annex > product line), some nasty 3com terminal server of which my memory has > thankfully purged most details and the gone but not lamented Cisco > TRouter. The Netblazers worked pretty darned well when plugged into > Telebit modems. Third party modems, well, there were a lot of knobs > you could twist, and not the best in the way of documentation on what > to do with 'em. > > Based on my experience with them, I'm quite sure they were fabulous > devices capable of being configured in the field to do just about > anything, if you had the level of familiarity with their internals > that someone who worked QA for them would have had. > > ---Rob > > > >
|