Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!teemc!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SYSV R4.0 High speed UUCP
Keywords: UUCP V.32 V.42bis PEP
Message-ID: <252@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 18 Feb 91 18:56:54 GMT
References: <1991Feb10.201122.29918@comp.vuw.ac.nz> <1991Feb15.054602.913@jadpc.cts.com> <24318@netcom.COM> <1991Feb17.195353.25156@rwwa.COM>
Organization: IRS/CI - Technical Solutions Branch
Lines: 19

witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) writes:

>Yes, and there is the rub.  My interpretation is that each modem
>manufacturer has implemented V.42/V.42bis slightly differently (this
>was the gist of a Byte review of these modems) leading to
>incompatabilities.  I know for a fact that I cannot do 9600 BPS UUCP
>using a Practical Periphials modem to a Telebit T2500 when using
>V.42(bis) LAP-M/compression.  If I turn off the V.42/bis stuff the
>transfer works OK.

	Ah, but are you using early T2500 or recent T2500? Telebit data
sheets for the original T2500 did not indicate V.42bis support, but only
MNP 2-5. Recent data sheets not only explicitly list V.42 and V.42bis
support but additional goodies like callback. Thus, if your modem insists
on running V.42bis/LAP-M when its counterpart insists it can't grok that
protocol, you're doomed to failure. 

-----------  
uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake				shwake@rsxtech