Terminal Servers (was Re: netblazer Was: baiting)

John Palmer nanog at adns.net
Tue Jan 18 16:53:29 UTC 2005

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" <rs at seastrom.com>
To: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner at nic-naa.net>
Cc: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan at verisign.com>; <wsimpson at greendragon.com>;
<nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:10
Subject: Re: netblazer Was: baiting

> Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner at nic-naa.net> 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
> > the red buttons on Wellfleets were correctly positioned on the front,
> > easy access. We used NetBlazers for dial-up outbound (we were
> > quite diverse by '91, our last show in the San Jose facility) and I
> > 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

More information about the NANOG mailing list