Re: Farallon to Livingston

Stephen Fisher (lithium@cia-g.com)
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:15:58 -0600 (MDT)

It would be very nice if Livingston were to implement NAT.

There are a lot of features that aren't very high demand, but could sell a
lot of products, if Livingston would implement them. Livingston only
likes implementing highly requested things.. by the way, I heard something
about Livingston shipping PM2's with 4meg of ram now also.. does this mean
the ComOS can expand some more? Are there any specific things coming into
it?

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Vikram Khare wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Josh Siegel wrote:
>
> > You're correct that the Netopia sounds like what you need. The Ascend
> > implementation of NAT is a little far out with a one-to-one relationship
> > between global addresses and private addresses. The way the Netopia uses
> > ONE global address to the many private addresses is a better way of going
> > about it, in my mind.
>
> Well, does Livingston plan on supporting anything like NAT soon?
> I'd imagine that a Livingston office router connecting to a Portmaster
> would more than likely be a more reliable connect with better uptime than
> a different vendor's product connecting to my Portmasters.
>
> --
> vkhare@cyberview.net
> http://www.cyberview.net
>
>