Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:50:12 -0400 From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: "Miguel A.L. Paraz" <map@iphil.net> Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Comparison Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970617105009.00afa4e0@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:57 PM 6/17/97 +0800, you wrote: >Hi, > >Jon Lewis wrote: >> I wonder if ET has considered such a thing based on their sync cards? My >> guess is there's so much extra hardware and software involved that anyone >> making one of these as a PC card to be used under Unix or NT is unlikely. This is non-sense, but the market for unix is way too small and NT probably doesnt have the hooks to do it properly. It IS a big project, and to do EI would require getting tons of approvals and testing sites......but channelized T1 is more reasonable. We dont plan on doing it though. Can't do everything, and selling unix into high-end scenarios is a tough job. > >Perhaps. However I am interested, and I'm sure many other folks are, >in the interests of ease-of-management. Channelized E1 gear such as >the Ascend MAX 4000 support a whole lot of stuff like ISDN and frame >which we cannot use anyway, but add to the cost (fantastic!) > >I'm also appalled by the fact that the low-end MAX doesn't support >OSPF (as per their web site). This is a requirement for us since >the main application is for dial-up LAN routing and leased line >backup. Thats how they make money, but *assuming* that low-end and OSPF are in different genres. Dennis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970617105009.00afa4e0>