From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 15 10:44:03 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id KAA29275 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:44:03 -0800 Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA29269; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:43:54 -0800 Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <202>; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:52:50 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:52:35 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: Joe Greco cc: jcargill@cs.wisc.edu, jkh@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Network gurus: How hard to split bandwidth across modems? In-Reply-To: <9502151758.AA18784@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Joe Greco wrote: > Well, it is immediately obvious that they've used a simplistic algorithm: I > suspect that it would be No Big Deal to talk to a blazer in whatever manner > of multi-line implementation we choose... > > In response to Jon's previous message, I concur that a multi-link PPP > implementation would be preferable. However, given that I am not much of a > kernel hack, and that there is code that already works (and just needs to be > ported/hacked) for SLIP, I think I would prefer to tackle the job that looks > mildly intimidating, rather than the job that looks hopelessly impossible. I realy don't like the idea of multi-link PPP for load-balancing. Load-balancing shouldn't be that difficult. It also would nice if it could be so general to load balance over any number of packet interfaces (load balance multiple ethernet interfaces?) Tom