Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:12:46 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? Message-ID: <199611181412.IAA02190@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199611161656.LAA13898@etinc.com> from "dennis" at Nov 16, 96 11:56:08 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >I don't see that happening here, at least locally. > > > >What I usually see is people going for T3, the circuit costs are not so > >terribly different, and then the upstream provider meters bandwidth or > >performs rate limiting of some sort. > > It is my understanding that the "rate-limiting" was flipping switches > on the T3 CSU/DSU,which is fractional T3 (ie, adjusting the clock > rate). That IS what I'm talking about! Rate limiting can be achieved in a number of ways. "Flipping switches on the CSU/DSU" generally increases latency. One can rate limit in software, or alternatively simply meter usage and if a threshold is exceeded, possibly raise the customer's rate. Hey, I'm not advocating it... I'm just saying what is currently done by some. > >Sure. But your ISA based product is going to get a little slow handling > >such high speeds, I would think? Maybe not. I would rather see a PCI > >based solution, but that is just personal preference. > > Im not talking about ISA...... Then what ARE you talking about? ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611181412.IAA02190>