From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Nov 19 20:25:13 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA02115
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from veda.is (ubiq.veda.is [193.4.230.60])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA02110
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.8.3/8.7.3) id EAA19244; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:27:05 GMT
From: Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Message-Id: <199611200427.EAA19244@veda.is>
Subject: Re: split speed sio port?
In-Reply-To: <199611200033.LAA03940@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from Michael Smith at "Nov 20, 96 11:03:29 am"
To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:27:04 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, davidn@blaze.net.au, hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 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