From owner-freebsd-isp  Tue Nov 19 14:45:44 1996
Return-Path: owner-isp
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA12190
          for isp-outgoing; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from red.jnx.com (red.jnx.com [208.197.169.254])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA12170
          for <isp@freebsd.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chimp.jnx.com (chimp.jnx.com [208.197.169.246]) by red.jnx.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id OAA13246; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tli@localhost) by chimp.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA16253; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:44:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:44:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199611192244.OAA16253@chimp.jnx.com>
From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
To: dennis@etinc.com
CC: isp@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <199611191503.KAA06885@etinc.com> (dennis@etinc.com)
Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3?
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


   We're not really concerned with "outages" here, its routing load, which at
   T1 simply isnt an issue for a low powered pentium running freebsd and a 
   busy web and mail server. 

Excuse me, but outages are paramount.  They are the direct result of
technology failure and are the metric of user pain and anguish.  I agree
that the routing load is not an issue, however, the load of a busy web and
mail server may cause routing to fail.

   If you're implication is that a 2501 and an NT server is somehow more
   reliable than a freebsd box with a card, I think you'll bet a lot of
   disagreement on this list.

I'm not trying to imply anything other than what I'm saying outright:
running significant services on the same Unix box that you've got running
mission-critical routing is going to be less reliable than a situation
where routing does not have competition for resources.

Tony