🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Article #649

Re: CSC/3 vs. CSC/2 processor

#649
From: Martin Lee Schoffstall
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 1990 10:11
71 lines
3310 bytes
Alan,

An alternative solution is a memory upgrade for the csc/2 to
4Mbytes.

Marty
-----------

 >From cisco-request@spot.colorado.edu Fri Sep  7 04:34:15 1990
 >Date: Fri 7 Sep 90 00:35:34-PDT
 >From: William "Chops" Westfield <BILLW@mathom.cisco.com>
 >Subject: Re:  LAT-Telnet Translation over Ethernet Media
 >To: RAF@cu.nih.gov
 >Cc: cisco@spot.colorado.edu
 >In-Reply-To: <9009070317.AA27586@alw.nih.gov>
 >
 >
 >Well, the added speed of the csc/3 processor is sort of irrelevant in
 >the smaller boxes but the 4 meg of memory (vs 1 meg on the csc/2) come
 >in handy.  Us engineers have this habit of writing lots of code...
 >
 >Not only that, but them standards comitees keep making standards use
 >up lots of memory too.  (For example, SPF routing algorthms use more
 >memory than distance vector algorithms, ISO routes on a per-host
 >basis instead of a per-net basis, tn3270 takes at least an additional
 >2k bytes per connection, tcp header compression has to save a bunch
 >of IP headers for each "interface", and so on.)
 >
 >4Meg used to seem like a lot of memory.  Now I wish the next generation
 >of chips would get cheaper faster.
 >
 >Bill Westfield
 >cisco Systems.
 >-------
 >

 Okay, I'm going to air a gripe about cisco in this respect.  I'm being
 told I should upgrade to the CSC/3 processor card because it has
 more memory, the implication is that soon the 1 megabyte in the older
 cards won't be enough.  At an upgrade price of $4500, I am paying about
 $1500 per megabyte for these three extra megabytes.  This is bad enough,
 but if this truly is the "decade of ISO" and ISO routes on a per-host
 basis (didn't they learn anything from DECNET?), then how soon will
 it be before 4 megabytes isn't enough?  And what will I have to do then,
 upgrade to the CSC/4?  

 I think cisco should immediately re-engineer the CSC/3 board to allow
 addition of memory (perhaps even on a separate card connected by
 ribbon cable) *without* having to replace the processor card.  You
 can call this the CSC/3+ or CSC/4 or whatever, but you should do this
 immediately and offer to exchange existing CSC/3 cards for the new
 ones on the most generous terms you can afford.

 Look at it this way:  if you don't provide for adding memory, you are
 going to have to deal with me and a bunch of other customers demanding
 special software builds with only the protocols we need to save space.
 If you do solve the problem, you will deal with the same customers by
 selling them expansion memory boards.  Which business would you rather
 be in?

 	- Alan S. Watt
 	  High Speed Networking, Yale University
 	  Computing and Information Systems
 	  Box 2112 Yale Station
 	  New Haven, CT  06520-2112
 	  (203) 432-6600 X394
 	  Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu


 Disclaimer:  "Make Love, Not War -- Be Prepared For Both"
 		- Edelman's Sporting Goods [and Marital Aids?]
Technical Details
Message-ID: <25929@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!boulder!daemon

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!boulder!daemon
From: schoff@psi.com (Martin Lee Schoffstall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: CSC/3 vs. CSC/2 processor
Message-ID: <25929@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 10 Sep 90 10:11:03 GMT
Sender: daemon@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Lines: 71