Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:57:52 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Busarow <dan@dpcsys.com> To: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.961119164650.29471C-100000@cedb> In-Reply-To: <199611192238.OAA16243@chimp.jnx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Tony Li wrote: > I agree with the goal and the conclusion. I still don't believe that > you've got enough process level control that you can also make the box a > Web server, say and not endanger the protocols. If you are running a web server, and maybe sendmail and popper, on this box it's probably not a real* router. I bet it'll have a default route out the serial interface and a static route pointing at the interior network. If this is the case, should a P133 have any problems, even under heavy load? I don't see how the choice between two routes would get in its way. * it's not going to be running gated or even routed Dan -- Dan Busarow 714 443 4172 DPC Systems dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.UW2.3.95.961119164650.29471C-100000>