Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!max4.llnl.gov!scooper
From: scooper@max4.llnl.gov (Steve Cooper)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: SLIP: Why are people so reluctant to use it?
Keywords: SLIP, UnixWorld, TCP/IP
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.082816@max4.llnl.gov>
Date: 17 Oct 90 15:28:16 GMT
References: <1990Oct17.133028.14849@bnrgate.bnr.ca> <1990Oct16.225610.3505@oracle.com>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: scooper@max4.llnl.gov (Steve Cooper)
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, USA
Lines: 17

|> Note:  the Internet community is apparently working on the PPP
(Point-to-Point
|> protocol) as a way of curing some SLIP headaches.  Anyone know PPP's status?

Some PPP products were featured at Interop '90 last week in one of their
"Solutions Showcase (tm) Demonstrations".  The topology of PPP demonstrations
had cisco, Telebit, 3Com, and Network Systems communicating over 56K bps
synchronous links and Telebit, INTERACTIVE, and Xylogics communicating
over 9.6K and 19.2K bps asynchronous links.

RFC 1171 describes the protocol and obsoletes RFC 1134.  RFC 1172 describes
the initial configuration options.

---------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Stephen P. Cooper                      | scooper@aracmax1.llnl.gov (now)
who works at but does not represent    | cooper10@llnl.gov (soon)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory |