Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:7124 comp.unix.sysv386:1736 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:4086
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: slip
Message-ID: <1990Nov01.025031.12861@virtech.uucp>
Date: 1 Nov 90 02:50:31 GMT
References: <1990Oct31.115338.4582@nstar.uucp>
Reply-To: cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill)
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc., Sterling VA
Lines: 18

In article <1990Oct31.115338.4582@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes:
>Are the new V.32 with v.42bis modems the way to go with SLIP?
>Will it be possible to get throughput in the 15 kbytes range
>with these new modems (in excess of the carrier rate - after all
>the modem manufactures claim throughput in excess of 20,000 bps?)

I wouldn't count on getting > 800byte/sec throughput with slip because
you won't be able to use the error correction mode (it will conflict with the
acks required by slip).

Besides, most modem manufacturer claims of throughput deal with throughput
of clear text (which is pretty easy to compress), not a standard mix of
text and data (which is what you would expect on a typical slip connection).

-- 
Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.,
uunet!virtech!cpcahil                           46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160
                                                Sterling, VA 22170