From owner-freebsd-isp  Tue Jun 17 07:50:33 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA17786
          for isp-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA17781
          for <isp@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA20884; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:59:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970617105009.00afa4e0@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:50:12 -0400
To: "Miguel A.L. Paraz" <map@iphil.net>
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: Comparison
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 01:57 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