Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:7995 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:14497
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!robobar!ronald
From: ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: V32bis
Message-ID: <1991Jan16.210914.18482@robobar.co.uk>
Date: 16 Jan 91 21:09:14 GMT
References: <3713.27832d53@hayes.uucp> <89275@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <81164@sgi.sgi.com>
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Lines: 15

vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes in defence of the TB+:

> On the contrary, X terminals would benefit from a good asymmetric splitting
> of bandwidth.

But PEP doesn't give you split bandwidth, it gives you half duplex with
extremely high cost to turn the line around.  Now, if you had a
link-level protocol that reduced the number of turnrounds by letting
whole windows through before letting the other side speak, you might
win.  SLIP doesn't do this though, and my cursory glance at PPP doesn't
show such an option there either (though I'd be glad to be told that I'm
wrong).  Am I ? Does such a protocol exist ?

-- 
ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)