From owner-freebsd-isp  Sun Jun  8 04:18:20 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA09105
          for isp-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 04:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [194.154.62.72])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA09099
          for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 04:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk [194.154.62.72] 
	by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1)
	id 0wafxu-0000fy-00; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:16:54 +0100
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:16:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Manar Hussain <manar@ivision.co.uk>
To: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ETinc's Bandwidth limiter
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970607120556.00bbf234@etinc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.970608121555.2597A-100000@stingray.ivision.co.uk>
Organisation: Internet Vision
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>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.

Manar