From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Nov 16 09:51:33 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA09972 for isp-outgoing; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:51:33 -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 JAA09967 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:51:31 -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 MAA28848; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:51:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:48:58 -0500 () From: Bradley Dunn To: dennis cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? In-Reply-To: <199611161542.KAA13490@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 Sat, 16 Nov 1996, dennis wrote: > >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 Exactly, but you seemed to be saying that unix could not route at that speed. The Ascend embedded OS is a hacked unix. It uses gated, but you could in fact use anything that writes to the unix routing socket. I call that unix. -BD