Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: SLIP compression... Message-ID: <16791@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 12 Jul 89 13:08:40 GMT References: <340@larouch.UUCP> <5108@oregon.uoregon.edu> <11771@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Organization: I am NOT the NRA Lines: 23 In article <11771@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: >The problem with putting compression in the modem is that you're >still limited by the 9.6Kbps or 19.2Kbps pipe from the CPU to the >modem. (Assuming an external modem, of course.) Putting compression in the modem will make it more tolerant [ depending on modem technology that is ... ] of noisy operating environments. Consider a data stream being compressed 50 percent. As the quality of the link degrades, the utilization may increase from 50 percent, which it was limited to by the baud rate at the modem interface. The utilization rate is able to increase until the modem is once again operating at the interface speed, or the the [ very ] noisy line limits the data rate at the interface. At some point in time it would be nice if a hardware vendor would create a bidirectional parallel interface and put a modem on it. That company would probably earn quite a few dollar$ doing $o. -- John F. Haugh II +-Quote of the month club: ------------ VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832 Data: -8835 | "Computer security is to information InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org | control as a chastity belt is to UucpNet : !bigtex!rpp386!jfh +- birth control" -- Doug Steves --