From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Feb 11 23:22:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA18924 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:22:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.8.15.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA18879 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:21:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from danny@panda.hilink.com.au) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA09182; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:21:45 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:21:45 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Jim Shankland cc: joe@thebestisp.com, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: FreeBSD firewall questions In-Reply-To: <199802120709.XAA03963@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Jim Shankland wrote: > You're right, though, that a hub is unnecessary to connect two hosts > point-to-point. And if the interface cards support it, you can run > the point-to-point line in full-duplex; for that matter, with > 10/100 cards running $60 or less, at 100 Mb/s. 100 Mb hub and switch > prices are dropping fast, but they're not yet down to a trivial level. And if the two computers are right next to each other, why not use coax? It seems to have gone out of fashion, somewhat, but it still works. Danny To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message