From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 17 17:32:52 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA25257 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 17:32:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA25199 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 17:32:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from underdog.maxie.com (maxie.com [199.250.231.28]) by who.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id RAA23675 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 17:22:35 -0800 Received: (from max@localhost) by underdog.maxie.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA18629; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 20:21:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 20:21:30 -0500 (EST) From: James Robertson To: "Amancio Hasty Jr." cc: Robert Withrow , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Another cool hack with FreeBSD... In-Reply-To: <199601172057.MAA00637@rah.star-gate.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Amancio Hasty Jr. wrote: > Well, my Ascend Pipeline 50 has just one isdn interface so two > ISDN lines is out of the question. Adding support to multiple > ISDN lines is still a viable solution specially in areas in which > ISDN rates are low. Yes, it would be. I think it would have to be done with the ISDN cards though. You could use two seperate ethernets to talk to two Pipelines, or just give them two different addresses on one. The problem would be the host machine would have no way of knowing if the pipeline had actually sent the packet or dropped it, so in trying to load share it could actually be routing traffic to an interface that may already be at capacity or even down, when it thinks it is doing a good job sharing the load. James Robertson Treetop Internet Services