Re: (ASCEND) NAT and Ascend

To: "Neal Rigney" <neal@pernet.net>, <ascend-users@bungi.com>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) NAT and Ascend
From: "Kevin A. Smith" <kevin@ascend.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 17:41:22 -0700
In-Reply-To: <03df01bd6fd0$20ae0c80$2e00e5cd@dilbert.pernet.net>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 05:27 PM 4/24/98 -0500, Neal Rigney wrote:
>I just spoke to support at Ascend about this issue.  Their reply:  A P75 is
>only good for 5-10 users. Heh.  I pay $900 for a TA and it'll only support 5
>stations?!?  "Hello, cisco?"

I think it's true to say that the way NAT has been implemented, we expect that
only 8 to 10 hosts would be supported at any time (assuming a fairly standard
usage pattern - whatever that is!). If the WAN access is lower per host, then
more would be supported....and vice-versa.

Nor non-NAT, we don't expect any limitation beyond the obvious (BRI
bandwidth).

I believe things in that area are being revisited.....

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>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) NAT and Ascend

From: "Neal Rigney" <neal@pernet.net>

Prev by Date: (ASCEND) Re: What's with the SPAM (fwd)
Next by Date: (ASCEND) Radius/Routing Problem
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) NAT and Ascend
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) NAT and Ascend
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread