From owner-freebsd-isp  Sun Jun  8 08:53:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA17498
          for isp-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 08:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA17488
          for <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 08:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dbws.etinc.com (dbws.etinc.com [204.141.95.130]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA28741; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:00:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970608115227.006b4a24@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 11:52:29 -0400
To: Manar Hussain <manar@ivision.co.uk>
From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: ETinc's Bandwidth limiter
Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 12:16 PM 6/8/97 +0100, Manar Hussain wrote:
>>>Anyone got any views about bandd versus emerging technology's product?
>>>Guess we should have a good play over the w/e to at least get a good idea
>>>of the installation/features if not performance ober time / under load.
>>
>>Shall we compare a Porsche to a bicycle next?
>
>If the case is that easy to make I'd be interested in seeing it made.

If you are going a very short distance they will both get you there
eventually.

Dennis