NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/protocol/nfs/3169

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 4.1 KB

Xref: sparky comp.protocols.nfs:3169 comp.dcom.isdn:1188
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!infmx!johng
From: [e-mail] (John Galloway)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs,comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Low cost ether/isdn brouters (was PC-NFS PPP Serial/ISDN driver wanted)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 01:20:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Organization: Galloway Research
Lines: 82

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Carr) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Galloway) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Carr) writes:
>>>
>>>  Define too pricey? We sell an Ethernet remote bridge with compression
>>>  for $1795.
>>>
>>>Is that for each end, or for both ends?  When home computers cost $100 to
>>>$1200, then $1800 is too pricey.
>
>Each.  But then again, if you using a $100 computer, perhaps we should just
>emulate it on our 25 MIPs CPU, and save the $100 computer cost.
>
>>>In sufficient quantity, an isdn basic rate interface plus NT1 should be
>>>about $100.
>
>>Gee that would be nice, but I think unrealistic.  This would mean that a
>>single unit would likely sell for 160-200, which is less than a v.32 modem.
>>Given the couple of extra items (like a LANCE chipe set, and the NT1)
>>an isdn/ethernet bridge should cost a bit more than a modem.  So say 400-500
>>in singles and maybe 250-300 in quanity.  Or so it seems to me.
>
>I would venture to say that a personal non-compressing ISDN bridge should and
>will cost the same as a V.32 modem in about a year.  The problem is that they
>are apples and orange.  Our bridge handles 4,000 ethernet address in it's
>table, stores hundreds of them in non-volatile SRAM, runs SNMP and OSI stacks,
>has telnet access, blah, blah, blah.  There is no equivalent V.32 modem.
>
>At the other end of the scale, we do have a V.32 modem equivalent, the 5510
>bridge.  It's lower cost (don't know price) and only handles a single

   the 5510 retails for $1995 (at least from Advanced Internetowrk
   Communications Inc., San Mateo)

>uncompressed B-channel, no SMNP, in fact no bells and whistles.  Problem is
>it's too simple.
>
>Let's price out what you want (and I'm speculating your needs of course):
>
>Enclosure:    10    Plastic
>Power Supply:    25    Frog-in-snake
>68302:        30
>Lance:         5
>DRAM        20    256Kx16
>DRAM logic    10
>NOVRAM+RTC    15
>EPROM:        20    512K bytes
>PCB        20
>        --
>        $155 US
>
>Mark up of 300%, so sell price of $625 US.  Of course, if you can gaurantee
>me a monopoly on the market, I'll sell it for a lot less.  Better?

$625 would be great, but its likely only due to NOT operating in a monolopy
that such a price will ever be seen.

>
>Now, you want 2x 64Kbps compressed?  Well, the '302 may not cut the mustard.
>Probablly will, but you will sacrifice compression ratio.  But you may end
>up with V.42 bis (after paying $60K for license of course).
>
>Would you put a $600 modem on a $100 PC?
>
>We're open for discussion on the functional specification of this product.
>But please don't tell me you want V.32 (bis) compatability :-)

Just 2x64k (uncompressed would be ok), with real router sw (SNMP, RIP, ARP,
OSI?) rather than a filtering bridge is what I want. However it can be
oriented to a very small net doing quite simple routing (i.e. its not due
to a vast LAN at my house, but the fact that I, may, want a different network
then the other end of the bridge, that makes me want a router rather than a
bridge).  ALso I wonder if in a tcp/ip env V.42 type error control is
even desireable.  i.e. it costs something and higher levels in the system
(e.g. ftp) are doing their own error checking/retransmiting.  Right?
    -jrg
--
internet    [e-mail]  John R. Galloway, Jr  795 Beaver Creek Way
internet    [e-mail]     CEO...receptionist    San Jose, CA   95133
applelink   D3413                  Galloway Research     [phone]