Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob
From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: SLIP: Why are people so reluctant to use it?
Message-ID: <BOB.90Oct22123751@volitans.MorningStar.Com>
Date: 22 Oct 90 16:38:05 GMT
References: <1990Oct16.225610.3505@oracle.com> <966@lafayet.UUCP>
	<72778@sgi.sgi.com>
Sender: usenet@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator)
Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Lines: 23
In-Reply-To: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com's message of 20 Oct 90 19:02:22 GMT

In article <72778@sgi.sgi.com> vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
   In article <966@lafayet.UUCP>, rob@lafayet.UUCP (Rob Freyder) writes:
      What if you want to connect two remote systems via Telebit T2500
      in PEP mode ?  Is this reasonable ?

   SLIP/PEP works fine for FTP, giving ~1000 Bytes/second transfer
   rates, but less than the 1400 Bytes/sec. you can get with a pair of
   PEP modems doing UUCP.

PPP (with compressed headers) gives 1.3-1.5Kb/sec FTP throughput over
a PEP connection, which is getting close to the advertised bandwidth.
I've forgotten whether that's with in-modem compression turned on, but
I suspect not.

   For interactive use, SLIP or not, the v.32 mode of T2500's (and
   others) is probably better, even if the file transfer rate for
   FTP/SLIP/v.32 is <960 Bytes/sec.

...if you're able to maintain a V.32 carrier over a particular call.
There are some places where PEP will get only 3-400 bps for UUCP or
Xmodem, but nobody complains because nothing else will even latch a
carrier because of the rotten lines.  Probably not as much of a
problem in the industrialized world as around the Indian Ocean.