From owner-freebsd-doc  Mon Nov  5  1:27:14 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from web21101.mail.yahoo.com (web21101.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.227.103])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC63937B416
	for <freebsd-doc@freebsd.org>; Mon,  5 Nov 2001 01:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20011105092712.4961.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [62.254.0.4] by web21101.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 05 Nov 2001 01:27:12 PST
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 01:27:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Hiten Pandya <hitmaster2k@yahoo.com>
Subject: use switches instead of hubs in our examples
To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-doc.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-doc>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-doc>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

hello,
greetings,

i was thinking that... wouldn't it be better if we
used switches rather than hubs in those examples
provided in the "Advanced Networking" chapter...

example1: isdn-twisted-pair
example2: natd

the reason for this is that... for performance'
sake,
switches are better than hubs and there is a lot
less
congestion... i read that in a CCNA book ;)

or we could write <HUB/SWITCH> and we can also
provide
a suggestion that using a switch is better because
it
brings less congestion to the network...

=====
thanks,
regards,

Hiten Pandya
<hitmaster2k@yahoo.com>
http://www.geocities.com/hitmaster2k

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message