tcp-ip terminal servers

[Walt Haas]

In article <417 at wasatch.UUCP>, I wrote:
> 3com/Bridge loaned me a CS/1 for evaluation and it does the modem and flow
> control fine.  Unfortunately it doesn't support rlogin and refuses to ping
> a multihomed host (like, for example, cs.utah.edu).  I talked to the
> software support guy at 3com/Bridge about this and his reply was that they
> had no plans to support rlogin, and you shouldn't give two IP addresses
> to the same host (!).  So from that I think we can safely say that they
> can't support their software.

The reaction to this posting was quite interesting!  Firstly I received a
number of messages from 3com/Bridge people expressing concern that I did
not feel I was getting the quality of support that they tried to provide.
Clearly they are working hard to provide good support.  However many people
who responded did not understand what I expected rlogin to do, so let me
clarify what it does in the cisco and Encore products.  The user does
*not* log in to the terminal server, the user merely specifes use of the
rlogin protocol instead of the TELNET protocol.  Rlogin has the advantage
of making the terminal server much more transparent than a server running
TELNET.  Rlogin is the protocol of choice for users who have a choice.

> Incidentally I wrote their President a letter asking him to please get
> onto the Internet so I wouldn't have to play telephone tag for a week
> at a time to talk to his guys.  He never replied to the letter.

Several people provided uucp paths to Bridge and/or 3com, but none knew
of a username or alias set up to receive requests for service.  One
respondent said that their request to get connected to the Internet was being
held in some sort of queue, but they expected to be connected soon.

> Right now I have a Micom/Interlan NTS-100 downstairs to evaluate.  Their
> literature says it supports rlogin but I can't fine any sign of rlogin
> in the actual firmware - plus there are a slew of obvious bugs.  Probably
> I just got an old copy of the firmware but their tech support guys aren't
> returning phone calls - at least not with any degree of rapidity.

The local rep finally got the current firmware out of them after two tries.
I have it downstairs now and it does have some rlogin support, but there
still seem to be a few problems.  Perhaps I just haven't learned to configure
it correctly yet.  

> I know somebody on the net posts from Interlan ...

It was interesting to note that there was no response from Micom/Interlan
protesting that they try hard to give good service.  This is consistent
with the way they don't answer phone calls.

Be happy, don't worry  -- Walt Haas   haas at cs.utah.edu   utah-cs!haas