"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m803s3p5htiv3dktd7vh7u0st71cg39hv7@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:08:22 +0000, Mark <markincambs@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:56:46 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:878x1aa38m.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>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][/color]

You slashed the wrong way :-)
--
Graham

%Profound_observation%