From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Nov 15 17:48:49 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA02939 for isp-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:48:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.harborcom.net (root@ns2.harborcom.net [206.158.4.4]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA02934 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:48:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from swoosh.dunn.org (swoosh.dunn.org [206.158.7.243]) by ns2.harborcom.net (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27953; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:48:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:46:23 -0500 () From: Bradley Dunn To: dennis cc: isp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? In-Reply-To: <199611152232.RAA06688@etinc.com> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: bradley@harborcom.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, dennis wrote: > What I was saying was that I dont thing unix can route a steady > 86Mbs data stream, so a full T3 on a unix box may very well be > overkill. Hmmm...Apparently you are not aware of the Ascend GRF 400. http://www.ascend.com/products/grf400/grf400index.html > Gee...what I was hoping to get is what people need.....is there a substantial > fractional T3 requirement? or does everyone need/want full T3? Would anyone > buy a 32Mbs card, or is it a waste if it doesnt to full t3? It seems that > there should > be a market for relatively low-speed fiber....increasing the clock rate as > you need > bandwidth. 20 T1s is a lot of bandwidth. A lot of bandwidth today, a full pipe tomorrow. As for building a card that can do frac T3, I think there probably would be a market. Many are probably looking for a middle ground between T1 and T3. -BD