From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Nov 16 07:36:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA02827 for isp-outgoing; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 07:36:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA02817 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 07:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA13490; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:42:33 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:42:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199611161542.KAA13490@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: Bradley Dunn From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? Cc: isp@freebsd.org 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 Perhaps you haven't read it yourself? They are certainly not running anything similar to standard unix....they "cheat" by maintaining on-board caches so packets don't have to pass through the IP layer, as BSD design requires. Certainly you can do something similar for BSD systems, but it won't be a standard release O/S afterwards. Such things are OK if you are building a special-function system, but non highly desireable for general purpose O/Ss Dennis