On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:08:22 +0000, Mark <markincambs@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:56:46 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:878x1aa38m.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...[color=darkred]
>>> Steve <steev_l@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?
>>>
>>> Would you even know is a router has SPI unless you look at the part
>>> numbers of the chips on the board and see if a) They support the Serial
>>> Peripheral Interface and b) that the appropriate pins are wired to other
>>> chip(s) which also support SPI. Whether SPI is used should be a decision
>>> for the hardware designer and be of no interest to the user, unless
>>> the SPI bus is brought to a connector for an add-on board - but even
>>> then unless the user is going to design his own add-on board this will
>>> be of no interest to the user.[/color]
>>
>>I think we are talking about Stateful Packet Inspection here,
>>[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall[/url][/color]
>
>We are indeed.[/color]
I always use
http:\\[url]www.acronymfinder.com[/url]
84 definitions of SPI there.
Stateful Packet Inspection (firewall based protocol) links to:-
[url]http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Stateful+Packet+Inspection[/url]

---
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
---