From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jan 13 16:53:58 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA01439 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 1996 16:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA01428 Sat, 13 Jan 1996 16:53:47 -0800 (PST) To: Terry Lambert cc: grog@lemis.de, gjennejohn@frt.dec.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Status of ISDN drivers In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Jan 1996 14:37:59 MST." <199601122138.OAA20878@phaeton.artisoft.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 18:28:36 -0800 Message-ID: <5816.821500116@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I thought you meant you wanted to bond two 56k channels... so he's not > the only one who was confused. I have 64K B channels, both end-points being in the same CO (it's a Centrex ISDN connection, actually). Sinec I don't need to go through any trunk interconnect stuff, I get my full 64K. A friend at Cisco actually goes through some 3 or 4 different exchanges to get to Cisco from his house, and he now gets full 64K B channels as well, so I'd say that PacBell is managing to upgrade their infrastructure anyway. 56K limitations will probably be a thing of the past pretty soon, I think. As to how I'm using those two 64K B channels, I'm bonding them together and then speaking 115.2K async over the pipe. Where I'm losing out is not communicating to the TAs at a full 128K/bps syncronous, thus sacrificing the top end off 115.2 and paying for 2 extra bits in every byte. Jordan