Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:7130 comp.unix.sysv386:1742 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:4091
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!news!cartan!ndmath!nstar!larry
From: larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: slip
Message-ID: <1990Nov01.145738.16101@nstar.uucp>
Date: 1 Nov 90 14:57:38 GMT
References: <1990Oct31.115338.4582@nstar.uucp> <1990Nov01.025031.12861@virtech.uucp>
Organization: Northern Star Communications, Limited
Lines: 26

cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:

>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).

But I thought that SLIP assumed the hardware (modem link) supplied the
error correction - not TCP/IP itself - am I wrong?

So for SLIP you are saying I don't want MNP enabled?  How about v.42bis?

-- 
       Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA 
 {larry@nstar, uunet!sco!romed!nstar!larry, nstar%larry@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu}
                     backbone usenet newsfeeds available
         Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)