From owner-freebsd-hardware Fri Jul 5 14:09:11 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA11442 for hardware-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 14:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jparnas.cybercom.net (jparnas.cybercom.net [206.28.135.58]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA11433; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 14:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.cybercom.net (localhost.cybercom.net [127.0.0.1]) by jparnas.cybercom.net (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA03128; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 17:08:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199607052108.RAA03128@jparnas.cybercom.net> X-Authentication-Warning: jparnas.cybercom.net: Host localhost.cybercom.net didn't use HELO protocol To: Henry Spencer cc: Gary Palmer , hardware@freebsd.org, bsdi-users@bsdi.com X-External-Networks: yes Subject: Re: muliport boards - building a PPP dialup server In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 29 Jun 1996 14:30:28 EDT. Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 17:08:18 -0400 From: "Jacob M. Parnas" Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message you write: >> I thought the question was on what to expect from UARTS for high speed >> applications. I think Henry suggested using a local ethernet to connect to >> a ISP ethernet <-> ethernet<->ethernet WAN ISDN connection or high >> speed modem <-> home ethernet. > >Just to clarify... My suggestion is that you do not want a high-speed >application which looks like a UART to the software, at all, ever. You >want high-speed applications to come in via Ethernet, so your software >is dealing with a packet at a time rather than a character at a time. >It's worth the overhead of having to set up a 0.5m-long Ethernet, which >is fairly trivial nowadays. > >Yes, there are people who build high-speed interfaces that look like >UARTs, and they can be cheaper than the ones that sit on the other side >of an Ethernet. You get what you pay for. > > Henry Spencer > henry@zoo.toronto.edu Once again, the problem is the cost and the end result. There's no reason that one needs to handle a packet at a time. And a card like the Sportster ISDN 128 K terminal server does not load the computer much. I believe it handles a lot of PPP stuff internally, but I'm not sure. But regardless, I haven't heard of why that solution wouldn't work well. What do you get in the $1000+ system you propose that you don't get in the solution I proposed? I don't see it. Maybe if you had a complicated net at home the router might help, but for normal cases calling from home with one or two computers I don't see the loss. Jacob