From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Nov 14 02:44:39 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA29739 for isp-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 02:44:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.43.52]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA29734 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 02:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (richardc@localhost) by soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA23601; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 02:45:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 02:45:43 -0800 (PST) From: Veggy Vinny To: Jim Dixon cc: isp@FreeBSD.ORG, Chad Shackley Subject: Re: Decision in Router Purchase In-Reply-To: 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 Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Jim Dixon wrote: > On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Veggy Vinny wrote: > > > > Nothing to be ashamed of. Two of the largest networks in the world, > > > IBM and ans.net, use UNIX-based routers running gated. > > > > Really? I thought they used Cisco's or Cascade. > > No. ans.net has two separate autonomous systems, one (AS690) using > gated boxes and the other (just being implemented, I think), using > Bay routers. Hmmm, okay. Is Bay Routers the same as WellFleet? That's what we're using now and is probably the cause of this line on one of our machines: Nov 14 02:34:57 earth routed[57]: punt RTM_LOSING without gateway > Both IBM and ANS are members of the gated consortium. Ah I see. > > > Other problems: the logic for each port is on a small daughterboard. > > > This is held in only by friction. There is a device below one of the > > > daughterboards -- the one for port 0, unfortunately -- that is too > > > high (because it is socketed), so you can't get the daughterboard all > > > the way in without causing it to bow. Then over time it gradually works > > > its way out. > > > > So it actually has physical problems that can be costly over time? > > The daughterboard works its way loose. oh okay but does it damage the circuit board in anyway? > > Hmmm, I emailed Dennis at ET and the only problem we had was the > > COD only policy for payment. > > I think that support at ET has improved considerably. I could be wrong ;-) Oh that's good but is Dennis the only person at ET? ;-) > > Hmmm, what are the differences between the two cards anyways? > > Nothing much, as far as I can see, in terms of functionality. That is, > they do the same job. Oh I see, so the features are pretty much identical? > > We're gonna have either a Full T1 or a Frame Relay T1. So the SDL card > > doesn't support FR? > > There is no FreeBSD driver that handles frame relay. It's not a problem > with the card. There _are_ BSD/OS and Linux drivers for SDL. Oh okay, so it's just a driver issue. I guess the ET might be a better option for us now. > > As for the SDL, is the RiscSomething mentioned on the > > ET homepage actually the SDL card? > > Oh, probably. Dennis is given to slamming the opposition. The full > name of the dual-port card is the RISCom N2d. Yep, I knew I saw the Risc name somewhere Vince GaiaNet Corporation - Unix Networking Operations - GUS Mailing Lists Admin