From owner-freebsd-isp  Wed May 22 07:44:23 1996
Return-Path: owner-isp
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA00928
          for isp-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etinc.com (etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA00920;
          Wed, 22 May 1996 07:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dialup-usr11.etinc.com (dialup-usr11.etinc.com [204.141.95.132]) by etinc.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA26388; Wed, 22 May 1996 10:49:27 -0400
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:49:27 -0400
Message-Id: <199605221449.KAA26388@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: hackers@freebsd.org
From: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
Subject: 2.1R vs 050196SNAP
Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Can anyone, in a nutshell please, give me a simple bullet list of the
most compelling reasons (excluding obscure device support) to
run the SNAP over 2.1R.

thanks,

Dennis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Technologies, Inc.      http://www.etinc.com

Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For
Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame
Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25 for BSD/OS, FreeBSD 
and LINUX