problem with secure subnets attribute?

[<@IU.AI.SRI.COM:slug-admin@iu.ai.sri.com>]

    Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 10:50 EDT
    From: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>

	Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:21 EDT
	From: Juergen Christoffel <J.Christoffel@gmd.de>

	I'd be happy to agree that *enforcing* such a convention in a router
	isn't the best thing to do.

    Given the relative rarity of Chaosnet, I always thought it was pretty
    amazing that cisco put Chaos routing in their system at all.  I guess
    you should take what you get...

						    barmar

I think Cisco added Chaos routing as a special deal for one of their
customers (AT&T?).  They implemented it using the chaos chapters in the
old Book 9 from the Symbolics Doc set.

The only other way to bridge chaos packets at the time was to find an
old PDP-11 and set it up as a Minits bridge.  This involved getting some
special PROMs along with the right combination of cooperative InterLan
Ethernet boards and getting the Palx compiler running on OZ at MIT.
Since OZ has gone over the rainbow for good, it is nearly impossible to
update a load for a Minits box.  Symbolics has retired most of their
Minits bridges although I think a few are still running in Chatsworth
(we were using them to bridge to Chaosnet hardware networks for LM-2s that
were used for 36xx diagnostics for quite awhile out there!).

I remember a phone call from Bill Westfield of Cisco asking if Symbolics
was interested in marketing their gateways as Chaos bridges.