> On 30 Mar 99, at 6:16, Tim Tsai wrote:
>
> > Just noticed a [large scale] RAS review in the current issue of Network
> > Computing. http://www.networkcomputing.com.
>
> Yeah, I put a lot of stock in *this* report... ;-)
>
> "To select the best RAS, we looked for strong management applications"
>
> "Performance, while still an issue for remote access, is not just
> about throughput"
>
> "Ascend's MAX TNT took our Editor's Choice award. Superb GUI..."
I guess their OS of choice for scalability is winNT ;)
hehe, I'm just quickly perusing it and this is a laugh:
"We also wished we had some control over the modem configuration, such as
AT command settings."
Uhm, why would you need AT settings on a digital line?
"ComOS, the PortMaster firmware, has a rudimentary CLI that is not as
robust as Ascend's or Cisco's." robust?!?! How about not feature rich?
Seems the writer/testers need to find a decent thesaurus...
In all, my question is, why would you need all that trouble-shooting
ability unless you expect problems? *shrug* I'd much rather have a unit
that I don't have to worry about... though from posts there are some bugs
in the PM4 that are still being worked on.
Anyway like any test, I'd take it with a _large_ grain of salt.
Especially since they used a Midnight Networks Avalanche 2.0X5RA, which
apparently isn't real world capable. By this I mean taking their
statement "Even if we could test 56 Kbps, the test would have been limited
by the DTE rate." invalidates real world application. Uhm, isn't the
whole deal to terminate v.90 calls and have a decent/high success rate?
-- Aloha from Paradise,Sherwood Got Clue? If so: ISPF! The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
- To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message. Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>