Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 04:01:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: freelist@webweaver.net (Nicole Harrington) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, opsys@mail.webspan.net, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Packet Engines - FreeBSD Message-ID: <199806270401.VAA20393@usr04.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.980626194734.freelist@webweaver.net> from "Nicole Harrington" at Jun 26, 98 07:47:34 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Dunno.. I'm not that involved in that end... I belive the web page > gives some info about it. However if you are a TCI customer you are > in @home territory :< I'm afraid I am TCI-land. But of course, they don't have it yet, so I don't have cable TV (boycotting on general principles, I suppose, since they won't sell me Internet service or phone service, and I'm unwilling to sign yet another check per month; though I'm nearly convinced that TCI generates RF interference intentionally to make people buy cable. 8-)). > > If by "B", you mean they are permanently assigned one of the IP > > addresses from your allocated block (ie: they have a static IP), then > > it's not a problem. > > Yes and No. The 2 way systems get a perminant IP. The dial back systems > do not. However we will most likely Not be allowing people to run > servers or domains via thier cable modem. It is still up in the air > however. Altho, any user who has a domain they want to use They MUST > have a fixed IP. Well, for customer-bound mail traffic, it's not really a "server". For SPAMmers and for FTP/HTTP servers, I could see there being a problem. You could easily block that by firewalling HTTP/FTP packets without the response bit set. 8-). I expect you want them to pull data instead of pushing it. I know the @Home guys are > Yes, we really just stay away from "transiently connected business" We > have enough perm connect customers now to deal with. Easy decision to make with a cable modem, I suppose, where everything is basically on all the time. > Yes, however the idea of having 100K+ messages being appended to a > usenames file just doesn't seem appealing. It is faster to just drop a > file into a directory. The flip side is that it eats a lot of inodes when you uses your FS as a database. Overall, you will be able to fit more messages on a disk when you are eating a "from" line overhead instead of 128 bytes for an inode and an average of fragsize/2 bytes per message. More of an administrative issue than anything else. 8-). > > What's wrong with the ISC DHCP on FreeBSD, that you need Sun/Solaris > > binaries? > > There are only 2 DHCP companies (That I know of) that adhere to the > MCNS Cable modem standards. The one I want to switch too (since the > one my boss chose to run on a NT machine keeps dying.. imagine that > :> ) only come in HP UNIX and sun/solaris. Solaris x86, or Solaris/SPARC? > Belive me.. If I could I would. But we are looking at having 100K+ > users by next year with abt 100 cable sites banging away on the DHCP > servers. I need something known to work for this application. Makes sense; on the other hand, the ISC stuff is the reference implementation. I'd be surprised if it (or the WIDE stuff) didn't support all the standards. You might want to contact Vixie and ask him... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806270401.VAA20393>