From owner-freebsd-isp  Mon Jan  6 14:15:38 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA04140
          for isp-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id OAA04130
          for <isp@freebsd.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA27604; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:20:27 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970106171528.00a807d0@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 17:15:35 -0500
To: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD as T1 router
Cc: isp@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 01:34 PM 1/6/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>   >   "Everyone" uses Cisco and "the net" sucks, so what does that tell you?

This was a joke...sorry it offended you.

>
>   For 1, these are "Facts"....every time there is a problem at my upstream
>   provider it is some issue with their Cisco router. That, is a FACT.
>
>Fine, but that's not what you said.  If you have a problem with your
>upstream provider, that is not EVERYONE's fault.  It might not even be
>cisco's. 

My provider could be lying to me...but I doubt it since hes an old colleague.

>Your generalizations are showing.

And its not a "generalization", its a specific example to illustrate my
point. The
thing pigs out without being near to its published capacity....

Your bias is showing.

db