From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Aug 14 16:33:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA21169 for isp-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA21163 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA12133; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970814193303.00ebd960@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:33:06 -0400 To: "Randy A. Katz" From: dennis Subject: Re: Multi-homed - Load Balancing - No Single Point of Failure Cc: isp@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 03:19 PM 8/14/97 -0700, you wrote: >I just spoke with the guy in sales at SDL. It seems they're tied in closely >with BSDi and he seemed to think they would be able to offer a solution in >that area (using BSDi, of course). I'm not so opposed to buying the OS if >the solution is good and it means we don't have to buy a Cisco 4700. The solution exists without having to buy BSD/OS or a Cisco4700. The solution with SDL and BSD/OS (we also support BSD/OS) is the same as the freebsd/ET solution. The question is do you want to deal with gated (which you have to in either case), not is there a solution. Dennis