We have a colleague using it. We are getting a lot of costumers from
them. The main complaint about them is that the pool doesent work very
good.
Our pool was just tested in a national magazine. We ranked the highest,
with 99.9 percent completed calls together with a couple other PM3
sites. They claim they got one busy signal, but I dont believe it was
our fault since we have never been higher than 80% util.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Goryachev [mailto:adamg@dot.net.au]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 1998 5:35 AM
To: portmaster-users@livingston.com
Subject: Re: (PM) ACC Tigress Terminal Server (fwd)
> Looks decent on paper - but it doesn't work well. I'd asked about
them a
> number of times on lists like Inet-Access, just trying to find someone
who'd
> used one. Everyone I found had either tried them and sent them back
and
> moved to Ascend/Lucent/3Com - or they were still trying to make it
work but
> were losing their hair and sanity doing so. I haven't heard much at
all
> on them in months. They just aren't a major player it seems.
We had one on trial for a while, at the time they didn't have support
for
scripted logins, (they do now), but apart from this, it worked
flawlessly with
PAP logins... Also the ACC colorado works great... They seem to support
every
routing protocol in existence... They are a very solid box overall.
(Only thing
I don't like is the CLI, but then it's on a par with the portmaster one,
(ie, I
don't like that either)).
Recently there was a conversation about this on the OZ-ISP mailing list,
the
outcome was that either it was some time ago when it was tested, or else
it is
in use now and works like a dream....
IMHO, I think they are a nice box.
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>