Re: (ASCEND) SNMP for Max4004

To: Brett Hawn <blh@texas.net>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) SNMP for Max4004
From: Jason Ackley <jason@viaccess.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:38:01 -0400 (AST)
cc: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com>, ascend-users@bungi.com
In-Reply-To: <19980114075220.52291@texas.net>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Brett Hawn wrote:

> even listening sockets take some cpu and memory, and the 4004 is lacking in
> both, always has been. Not to mention both are still piss poor methods, mine
> however is much more scalable.

 I guess it simply falls into personal experience at this point, as I have
not seen any problems with using cexample.. And I would rather not pass
plaintext passwords and such over a network via telnet..(Cexample could
very well do the same, I have not looked at the source for it at all, but
at least with the radius server, you can have control over what ip can and
cannot send radius commands to the max..)

---
Jason Ackley

++ 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) SNMP for Max4004

From: Brett Hawn <blh@texas.net>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) SNMP for Max4004
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) MAX 4048 + 5.0Ap38 oddity
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) SNMP for Max4004
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) SNMP for Max4004
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread