RE: [Emerald] livingston / ascend

Robert H. Clugston ( (no email) )
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:10:13 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BE5B59.2A5B5C40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would look into Cisco Terminal Servers. I run PM3's here and I'm starting
to think Cisco makes a better terminal server.
-----Original Message-----
From: emerald-request@iea-software.com
[mailto:emerald-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of (Ken)
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 3:55 PM
To: emerald@iea-software.com
Subject: [Emerald] livingston / ascend

I know this is a bit off topic but which would be better for a remote
pop a max 4048 or Portmaster 3. We are leaning twards the PM3 due to its
T1 card... but we are trying one of them right now with mixed results..

Kenneth Jaeger

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BE5B59.2A5B5C40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

I=20would look into Cisco Terminal Servers. I run PM3's here and I'm =starting to=20think Cisco makes a better terminal server.
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 emerald-request@iea-software.com=20 [mailto:emerald-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of=20 (Ken)
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 3:55 =PM
To:=20 emerald@iea-software.com
Subject: [Emerald] livingston /=20 ascend

I know this is a bit off topic =but which=20 would be better for a remote pop a max 4048 or Portmaster =3.   We=20 are leaning twards the PM3 due to its T1 card...  but we are =trying one=20 of them right now with mixed results..
 
Kenneth=20Jaeger
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BE5B59.2A5B5C40--