Gavin writes:

> > Configuring/changing CISCO router settings is not an option in this
>  > case.
>
>  You're positive about this? :-)
>
>  For terminals you really ought to use PC's with telnet or VT, and for
>  printers you should be able to use network printing, so my recommendation
>  would be to avoid RAFCP (and live longer).
>
>  If you absolutely had to have serial devices out there, I'd look at one of
>  the various generic "telnet server" or "terminal server" boxes that exist
>  and talk RS-xxx serial on one side and telnet on the other.  If you
>  absolutely have to be able to open a serial port on the 3000 and get to a
>  serial device at the remote location, I'd look at using back-to-back
>  "terminal server" boxes before heading down the RAFCP route.

Let me second Gavin's comments. RAFCP is an idea whose time has come and gone
(if it ever arrived). There are so many more reasonable, cheaper, and fully
routable solutions available now that RAFCP shouldn't be on anyone's
consideration list any more.

Wirt Atmar