From owner-freebsd-isp  Sat Jun  7 09:12:53 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA23222
          for isp-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:12:53 -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 JAA23217
          for <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dialup-usr11.etinc.com (dialup-usr11.etinc.com [204.141.95.132]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA19637; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 12:19:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970607120556.00bbf234@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 12:06:00 -0400
To: Manar Hussain <manar@ivision.co.uk>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: ETinc's Bandwidth limiter
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 11:54 AM 6/5/97 +0100, Manar Hussain wrote:
>>Please try ftp.hilink.com.au:/pub/FreeBSD/bandd.tgz and let me know what 
>>you think.  It requires FreeBSD 2.2 with IPFIREWALL IPDIVERT options.
>>
>>There is no documentation.
>
>code looks straight forward enough. It doesn't allow for burstability
>though ... might not be too hard to add in and it would be nice to be using
>something we have the source for rather than a commercial binary ...
>
>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?

db