Re: (ASCEND) NAT on P75 for 200 workstations (yeah, really...)

[Kevin Smith <kevin@ascend.com>]

At 06:29 PM 10/1/97 -0500, Jake Messinger wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>> At 08:43 PM 9/30/97 -0400, Jason Nealis wrote:
>> >
>> >200 workstations? Ouch, I'm guessing that it's a 128K line, hmm not good 
>> >bandwidth there. haha. I'd suggest that he do this with one of the
>> >new IMPROVED pipelines, I can see serious problems with the Pipe holding
>> >that type of routing table and etc. I think it would bring the 75 to 
>> >it's knee's.
>> 
>> What routing table? Surely there would be a single entry with the far-end
>> MAX as the default gateway....I'm more concerned with the bandwidth
bottleneck
>
>What about the nat translation table?

Yes....?

>> and the stress it would put on NAT itself (per-session intensive)....


Kevin


++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: (ASCEND) NAT on P75 for 200 workstations (yeah, really...)
• From: Christian Vogel <chris@obelix.bene.baynet.de>

References:

• Re: (ASCEND) NAT on P75 for 200 workstations (yeah, really...)
• From: Kevin Smith <kevin@ascend.com>
• Re: (ASCEND) NAT on P75 for 200 workstations (yeah, really...)
• From: Jake Messinger <jake@ams.com>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: (ASCEND) caller-id on POTS port of new P75
• Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) caller-id on POTS port of new P75
• Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) NAT on P75 for 200 workstations (yeah, really...)
• Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) NAT on P75 for 200 workstations (yeah, really...)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread