Chris Maddock wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
 CM> Second try. I'll get it right (I hope) this time. :)
I've got it now.
 CM> I wondered if you have had anything to do with any of the
 CM> "software" bridges and routers that were available.
I've used PC Route, but it was a long time ago.  Of course, I am one of the 
developers associated with KA9Q NOS, and many people used that as a router.
 CM> I have a Bridgit! bridge at work and there used to be others
 CM> that were available. 
 CM> The Bridgit! bridge works great for me. Two versions, local
 CM> coax/coax bridge and a coax/modem bridge to another office.
 CM> Runs on a 286/16.
I've never used Bridgit!, and I see little value these days in having 
software that will run on a 286.  I don't have a problem with software that 
requires a 386 as a minimum machine, and that is a huge jump in capability 
that buys you an enormous amount for what today costs nothing.
 CM> I tried one of the shareware ones but couldn't get the
 CM> software to load. 
 CM> Do you know of any that have been developed and can you
 CM> recommend any ?? 
I haven't seen anyone try to make serious use of bridging in years.  The only 
real benefit to bridging over routing is that the hardware is simpler.  In 
theory, you can bridge/switch prospectively without doing store and forward, 
but no software bridge/switch does this.  Switching has made something of a 
comeback in order to eliminate store and forward in very high speed 
situations, as with ATM or IP, but even there it is not mainstream 
chnology.
When you can use Linux running on as little as a 386SX to act as a full 
router for all of the major protocols, including IP and IPX, I just don't see 
any point to worrying about bridging unless I had some really oddball 
proprietary protocol that I needed to support.  For that matter, I assume 
Linux could do bridging, but I've never looked into it.
As I often ask, what is it that you are really trying to accomplish?
 
-- Mike
--- 
---------------