Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!sun-barr!lll-winken!lll-crg.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Rtelnet mods for Annex?
Message-ID: <38826@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 18 Nov 89 01:52:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: lll-wink.38826
References: <2658@ists.ists.ca> <4587@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 18

| From: eric@ists.ists.ca (Eric M. Carroll)
| 
| This [bug in rtelnet], and the lack of Van J's SL/IP improvements are the
| only blemishes against an otherwise fantastic product.

  It also can't be made to do RTS/CTS flow control and DTR/CD modem
control at the same time.  Additionally a single unidirectional 19200BPS
data stream will suck up 20% of the CPU.  (I think there's also a
parallel port.)

  This box only has serial ports, an ethernet and some logic tying them
together.  You'd think they'd be able to support the serial ports
properly.

  You're right, the box is fairly nice, but it could be much nicer and on
far more central issues than rtelnet.

Casey