From: CRDGW2::CRDGW2::MRGATE::"SMTP::CRVAX.SRI.COM::RELAY-INFO-VAX" 25-JUL-1989 03:49 To: MRGATE::"ARISIA::EVERHART" Subj: RE: Terminal Server for VMS and UN*X Received: From KL.SRI.COM by CRVAX.SRI.COM with TCP; Mon, 24 JUL 89 22:41:45 PDT Received: from ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU by KL.SRI.COM with TCP; Mon, 24 Jul 89 22:10:18 PDT Received: by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (5.61/1.37) id AA29829; Mon, 24 Jul 89 22:02:33 -0700 Received: from USENET by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU with netnews for info-vax@kl.sri.com (info-vax@kl.sri.com) (contact usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU if you have questions) Date: 25 Jul 89 04:48:29 GMT From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!viccol!dougcc@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Douglas Miller) Organization: Computer Services, Victoria College, Melbourne Subject: RE: Terminal Server for VMS and UN*X Message-Id: <913@csv.viccol.edu.au> Sender: info-vax-request@kl.sri.com To: info-vax@kl.sri.com In article <217@csv.viccol.edu.au> I wrote: >I am unfamiliar with the capabilities and operation of terminal servers, so >I would appreciate any advice on the following: > >I have a Sequent Symmetry running Dynix and several VAXes running VMS >connected via Ethernet. We use CMU TCP/IP to provide ftp and telnet access >betwen the Sequent and the VAXes. I would like to increase the terminal >port capacity by adding a terminal server(s). > >I want a terminal server that can be configured to serve the Sequent AND >the VAXes. Is this possible? Which suppliers should I talk to? Here is the (belated, sorry) summary of the response. It seems that there are a number of suitable terminal servers. The "voting" panned out like this: Terminal Server Protocols Votes =============== ========= ===== Annex TCP/IP 5 Xyplex TCP/IP,LAT 3 Micom Interlan TCP/IP,LAT 1 Cisco TCP/IP 1 Bridge TCP/IP 2 Thanks to everone who replied. A summary of received comments follows. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Annex terminal server is the best on the market (TCP/IP), and it will > support LAT in the 4.2 release I believe. If you can't do Annexes, > thenm try Cisco's, but they have no LAT support. All the other > LAT/TCP/IP terminal servers are truly lousy and you should stay away > from them... I know, we've had experiences with lots of companies... Milo (medin@nsipo.nasa.gov) [I asked if Micom Interlan was include in the "lousy" category] > We had it here at Ames for a test. The domain support wasn't very good, > and it's TCP wasn't of very good quality. Didn't listen to RIP packets > for routing, so if the default went down you got hosed. VERY POOR > security features for access control. Not very easy to configure/control, > no SLIP support, etc... > > Maybe I'm just expecting too much after dealing with Annexen. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Provided you're using TCP/IP in the VAX computers, I'd recommend you to > buy an Annex II terminal server from Xylogics or Encore. They are simply > the best. Robert Claeson E-mail: rclaeson@erbe.se --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > We are using 4 Xyplex Cluster Contollers as terminal servers for both VMS > & UNIX. These are stable, fully-functional boxes. All the problems/bugs > we have found have been given quick attention. (Xyplex even fixed the > bugs we have found.) > > The Cluster Controllers we use support the VMS connection via a > Xyplex-specific protocol, but Xyplex now supports LAT. |{uunet, ucsd, hplabs!hp-sdd, ames!scubed}!megatek!dubb (619)455-5590 x2253| |Howard Airhart MEGATEK Corporation 9645 Scranton Road San Diego CA 92121| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > We have four Encore Annex/UX I ethernet terminal servers, and are very > happy with them. When we got them, we also had a VMS Vax (with ethernet > hardware and TCP/IP software from EXCELAN). We sold our last VMS host (an > 11/750 four times the size of our B8, and 1/6th the processor power) last > September, but used the annexes with it for about two years, and found that > the annex telnet command worked flawlessly. > > As system manager of our five computer systems, I found the annex very easy > to setup and use. There is very little normal management required (when > people move, I must change their baud rate and terminal definitions), and > this is handled with the "na" network administrator program, which is > provided in source code, and runs on our Sequents fine. > > The Annex I has 16 serial ports, and the new Annex II has your choice of 16 > or 32 ports. It has an exhaust fan, which is not loud at all, but isn't > totally silent (if you try to sneak it in someone office, they will > notice). It's all RAM based - there is no disk drive to fail. It down > loads it's boot image via ethernet from a designated UNIX host, or another > Annex that's already booted. They have one Ethernet in, and one ethernet > out port, so you can daisy chain up to four annexes in a row, or directly > connect one to a host, without using any other ethernet cable at all. > > You can setup terminal ports to have multiple sessions at one time. > Pressing the BREAK key drops you back to the annex, and you use C-shell > like commands (jobs, fg, bg, kill) to list, connect to, or destroy the > sessions. > > You can setup any level of security you want. The C source code of the > authorization daemon is supplied, so if you want really facist security, > you can modify it to check anything as many times as you want. It is > possible to have the annex consult the security server before allowing > access to the command line (kind of like login checking), before allowing > access to any network entity (for checking of you have access to the host > you are trying to connect to), and/or for allowing access to the port from > the network (primarily for dialout modems, or ports that are back-ended > into a host that doesn't support TCP/IP). > > For terminals in our offices, I don't have any security turned on, and just > let the UNIX hosts prompt for login and password. For our dialup modems, I > have the login authorization turned on, so dialup users have to provide a > valid login and password before being given access to our network. These > login attempts (successful and failed) are logged, and I wrote a little > PERL script to report on each days activity. I found it was really painful > to make UUCP go through the Annex (but it is supposed to be possible), and > I gave up, and kept one dialup modem directly attached to one of our UNIX > hosts for UUCP dialups. They do supply a program (rtelnet, or "reverse > telnet") which is supposed to allow you to connect dialin/out modems and > serial devices to an annex anywhere on the network, and access them and > control them directly from any UNIX host, as though it was a local > device... > > The Annex can be configured to obtain hostnames and addresses from rwho > packets being broadcast, from the BSD 4.3 BIND nameserver, or from IEN116 > name server software (C source supplied). Since Sequent does not have 4.3 > BSD (and isn't ever going to), we use a combination of the IEN116 server > and rwhod broadcast packets, and it works fine. pwolfe@kailand.kai.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Since you've got TCP/IP with telnet on the VMS machines, almost any TCP/IP > terminal server should work for you. I have some limited but positive > experience with Interlan servers from Micom. They sell a version which speaks > telnet - as far as the Ultrix MicroVAX can tell, it's simply carrying on a > telnet connection with some other host. If the telnet server on your VMS > machines works okay, it should also be able to make a connection with the > terminal server. Mark Adams Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, California {sun,decwrl,uunet!mtxinu,pyramid,amdahl}!rtech!mca mca@rtech.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > We use an Annex as a terminal server for our sequent and other > machines. It works very well and we have had few problems with > it. We purchased ours in Australia from "Disk" something or > other. I don't have the address handy (working from home > today) but can get it if you are interested. They are made by > Encore, the same people that make the Multimax. Full TCP/IP > telnet, rlogin, security, bells and whistles. Stephen Frede, Softway Pty Ltd ACSnet: stephenf@softway.oz UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!stephenf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > If you can telnet to the Vaxen, then get cisco terminal servers. They > talk to anything that speaks telnet or rlogin, have 16-96 ports, are > easily configurable, and are very reliable. An ASM/2-96EM costs around > $20,000, I think - $200/port. You can buy a 16 port system and add > additional 16-port boards as needed to expand. They also have a range > of other sizes, down to a 10-port non-expandable system. We looked at > everything on the market last year, and cisco was the clear choice. > Encore Annex was a distance second, followed by everyone else far, far > behind. --Carl Rigney cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM {ames decwrl gatech pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!cdr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > We're using an Encore Corp "Annex" box. I'd reccommend it highly. > The only problems we've had have been to do with being unable to apply > the patches they supply for rlogind and telnet as we've only got > binaries on the sequent. > > Another nice feature the Annex has is the ability to configure a serial > port as a SLIP gateway. Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd (chris@softway.sw.oz) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I would really recommend the Annex server by Encore or Xylogics. Encore > sold the Annex to Xylogics recently. It makes a great terminal server > for us. We have been using them here for about 3.5-4 years now for > about 80 terminals and/or modems. Machines are Sequents, Encore, Alliant, > Suns (many many), Ardent, Cray, Intel, VAX8700/VMS VAX750/VMS, IBM-FAL ... > you get the idea. Gene, rackow@skeeve.mcs.anl.gov MCS- Argonne National Lab ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Bridge Communications makes a nice line of terminal servers. The NCS/150 is > a server with a floppy drive that can store boot info for any number of > "dumb" servers (i.e., without floppies). The CS/200 can boot from the > NCS/150. The NCS/150 can be a name server, allowing terminals to connect to > any of your hosts. Brian Fenske Boeing Commercial Airplanes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > There are a few companies who sell terminal servers that will talk telnet > over TCP/IP. The companies I know of are mostly American - Bridge (now > part of 3Com), Encore, and Cisco. A Scottish firm - Spider Systems - also > make and sell these boxes. > > We have Bridge boxes and they've not given us any problem in over 4 > years of use. The Encore servers offer extra goodies such as having a > Centronics printer port and support for remote printing. Jim Reid, jim@computer-science.strathclyde.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I strongly recommend looking at a Xyplex Maxserver. This terminal > server comes in two flavors: > > Maxserver 4500: up to 32 ports from one box; > LAT and TCP/IP compatible > (simultaneously) > > > Maxserver 5500: same as 4500 model, plus: > > - up to 120 ports > - dual fault-tolerant power supply > - dual fault tolerant Ethernet > connections > > Cost break-even point on the Maxserver 5500 vs DECServer 200s > (which cannot handle TCP/IP and LAT sessions at the same time) > is 40 ports. Viki Harkey Network Analyst, ISA, Inc. crash!viki@nosc.mil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I am also a satisfied Xyplex customer. I have a 32 port server > talking to an 11/785 and 4 Sun boxes. Users are very pleased with > this configuration. Xyplex customer assistance is great, if you > need help setting up your servers. There are now several other > vendors selling TCP/LAT servers but Xyplex has been doing it longer > than the others. Bruce Budd (budd@inmet.UUCP) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------