From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Nov 19 17:01:26 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA20388 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cedb.dpcsys.com (cedb.DPCSYS.COM [165.90.143.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA20383 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:01:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from cedb (cedb.DPCSYS.COM [165.90.143.3]) by cedb.dpcsys.com (8.8.2/DPC-1.0) with SMTP id QAA29589; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:57:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:57:52 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Busarow X-Sender: dan@cedb To: Tony Li cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? In-Reply-To: <199611192238.OAA16243@chimp.jnx.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Tony Li wrote: > I agree with the goal and the conclusion. I still don't believe that > you've got enough process level control that you can also make the box a > Web server, say and not endanger the protocols. If you are running a web server, and maybe sendmail and popper, on this box it's probably not a real* router. I bet it'll have a default route out the serial interface and a static route pointing at the interior network. If this is the case, should a P133 have any problems, even under heavy load? I don't see how the choice between two routes would get in its way. * it's not going to be running gated or even routed Dan -- Dan Busarow 714 443 4172 DPC Systems dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82