Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET> wrote:
> >>>>> "jkl" == James K Lowden <jklowden@schemamania.org> writes:
> 
> bah.  i hate to respond seriously but...whatever, i'll be lame.

We'll limp together, then.  ;-)

> The problem I see with them, it's hard to forward high pps, so if you
> use it to route on your LAN,...not good because all these tinyPeeCees
> I've seen have crappy Ethernet cards/drivers.  It's a real issue.  I
> have a 300MHz PeeCee laptop with 3c589 and PRISM2 that has >90% CPU in
> 'interrupt' just forwarding 5Mbit/s of big packets.  

Thanks for the links.  I know Christos, Perry, and Bill have NetBSD
experience with Soekris.  The net4501 at any rate doesn't use rtk; the
dmesgs I found show sip(4) on three different IRQs.  

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-i386/2001/07/27/0005.html

I don't know if sip's actually good, but from reading the rtk code my
impression was it held the crappy design trophy.  

I'm not routing between subnets.  I'm just handling the mail and DNS for a
DSL line.  I have a tl(4) facing the 'net now, and it's OK.  

--jkl