Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:7118 comp.unix.sysv386:1725 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:4082
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!rutgers!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: slip
Message-ID: <15506@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 31 Oct 90 22:05:42 GMT
References: <1990Oct31.115338.4582@nstar.uucp>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 28

In article <1990Oct31.115338.4582@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes:
> We have SLIP up and running here on nstar - and throughput
> over Telebits is very bad - while 2400 baud appears faster - 
> it is as expected still quite - so I guess V.32 is the next path.
> 
> 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?)

There is no particular assurance that V.42 works well with slip
or PPP, though they might.  On the other hand, I wouldn't buy a
V.32 modem that didn't include these capabilities.

Now, any changes that affect basic bandwidth, i.e. V.32 bis are
likely to help, but the facts aren't in yet...

Previous comments on slip vs trailblazers have indicated that
interative use of slip is pretty miserable, but performance for
file transfers, i.e. FTP was pretty good.  If you have access to
T2500's, try v.32 slip and see which you like best... There are
also a few poorly documented registers which affect TB packetizing
behavior which you might want to play with...

-- 
George Robbins - now working for,     uucp:   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing:   domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com
Commodore, Engineering Department     phone:  215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)