From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 28 23:39:06 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA28553
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 23:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cypher.net (black@zen.pratt.edu [205.232.115.155])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA28546
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 28 May 1997 23:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from black@localhost) by cypher.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) id CAA07061; Thu, 29 May 1997 02:38:20 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 02:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net>
To: jbryant@tfs.net
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: IP over SCSI
In-Reply-To: <199705290636.BAA00758@argus.nuke.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970529023702.895D-100000@zen.cypher.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

the only possible use for several hundred megabits per second of 
LAN/clustering bandwidth is SNMP?  do you have OC-192 to you kitchen 
appliances or something?

On Thu, 29 May 1997, Jim Bryant wrote:

> In reply:
> > has anyone thought about this for FreeBSD?
> > 
> > http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc2143.html
> 
> why?  Only possible use would be SNMP, and that can be achieved much
> easier by the host...
> 
> I want to see the TELNET SUBLIMINAL OPTION implemented...
> 
> jim
> -- 
> All opinions expressed are mine, if you   | "I will not be pushed, stamped,
> think otherwise, then go jump into turbid | briefed, debriefed, indexed, or
> radioactive waters and yell WAHOO !!!     | numbered!" - #1, "The Prisoner"
>  jbryant@tfs.net - KC5VDJ 2M, 70cm, KPC-3+ - kc5vdj@wv0t.#neks.ks.usa.noam
>