Terminal server (NAS) experiences?

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

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

From skw Tue Dec 14 06:24:44 1993
Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0)
  id AA28804; Tue, 14 Dec 93 06:24:48 -0500
Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0)
  id AA28796; Tue, 14 Dec 93 06:24:44 -0500