Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:7162 comp.unix.sysv386:1802 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:4115
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!simasd!jadpc!jdeitch
From: jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com (Jim Deitch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: slip
Message-ID: <29@jadpc.cts.com>
Date: 2 Nov 90 17:23:41 GMT
References: <1990Oct31.115338.4582@nstar.uucp> <15506@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Organization: Network Engineering Technologies, San Diego, CA
Lines: 52

In article <15506@cbmvax.commodore.com> grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes:
>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...
>
I have a T2500 and use it under V.32 for SL/IP.  In the pep mode it
seems that the modem eventually gets confused and quits.  I also use
the MNP compression and average about 800k bytes throughput.  I
haven't tried it without the MNP but suspect that it helps some.  The
telnet sessions I have done seem to perform better under V.32 also.

Can you expand on the packet registers and I can give them a try and
post what I find out.

For some backround:  My end:  20 Mhz 386 clone with 8 meg memory.
                              ISC 2.2 with HBTCP 1.2
			      T2500 and USR HST modems.
			      Normal use of slip is through a
			      computone Atvantage card but also use
			      the FAS drivers on standard ports.

		     My Host: DEC VAX 8600 running BSD 4.3

Jim



-- 

UUCP: nosc!jadpc!jdeitch
ARPA: jadpc!jdeitch@nosc.mil
INET: jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com