HP3000-L Archives

April 2000, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Rick Clark <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:37:34 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1254 bytes) , Rick Clark.vcf (325 bytes)
We use both a terminal server and a DTC in our remote offices.
The terminal servers allow us to connect to multiple systems.
The DTC's are set to direct connect to a system.
You can set the port on the DTC to be SWITCHED to connect to a system
other than the system that it downloads its configuration from.

Rick Clark
Senior Systems Analyst
WW&R
Cleveland, Ohio


-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Doug Werth
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 12:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Encapsulating DTC traffic in an IP packet


Wirt writes:
>
> If you want an unabashedly honest opinion, mine would be that you simply
> abandon AFCP (and implicitly therefore terminals) as soon as possible
and
> move over to a simple TCP/IP, PC- and JetDirect printer-based network.
> Routable AFCP simply isn't worth the time or trouble that you'll put
into it,
> especially compared to what you could have had in a TCP/IP network by
> comparison.

Furthermore, if you absolutely, positively must have dumb terminals you
could replace the DTCs with telnet terminal servers at the remote end.

Doug.

Doug Werth                             Beechglen Development Inc.
[log in to unmask]                               Cincinnati, Ohio


ATOM RSS1 RSS2