Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 20:21:30 -0500 (EST) From: James Robertson <max@underdog.maxie.com> To: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> Cc: Robert Withrow <witr@rwwa.com>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Another cool hack with FreeBSD... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960117201130.14064F-100000@underdog.maxie.com> In-Reply-To: <199601172057.MAA00637@rah.star-gate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Amancio Hasty Jr. wrote: > Well, my Ascend Pipeline 50 has just one isdn interface so two > ISDN lines is out of the question. Adding support to multiple > ISDN lines is still a viable solution specially in areas in which > ISDN rates are low. Yes, it would be. I think it would have to be done with the ISDN cards though. You could use two seperate ethernets to talk to two Pipelines, or just give them two different addresses on one. The problem would be the host machine would have no way of knowing if the pipeline had actually sent the packet or dropped it, so in trying to load share it could actually be routing traffic to an interface that may already be at capacity or even down, when it thinks it is doing a good job sharing the load. James Robertson Treetop Internet Services
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960117201130.14064F-100000>