Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:27:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, davidn@blaze.net.au, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: split speed sio port? Message-ID: <199611200427.EAA19244@veda.is> In-Reply-To: <199611200033.LAA03940@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from Michael Smith at "Nov 20, 96 11:03:29 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This is all very well, but when upstream is not (yet?) willing to implement > > such measures themselves and will not trust software that is located outside > > of their direct control, one has to make do with what is available. > > Huh? How does this affect anything? Or are you saying that "upstream" > insists that you use an asymmetrical link? It is at present the only way we can transmit more than we receive, without paying through the nose for the ability to receive more. This is because we are required to pay per-kb rate for 25% of available incoming bandwidth even if we only actually use 10%. (I don't think anyone else is happy with this billing arrangement either, except for the biller). > > Of course, a proven product might catch their interest in terms of > > suitability. > > Hey, go for it 8) What was the name of that product again, and does it have a URL? :) Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611200427.EAA19244>