Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!xenitec!zswamp!root
From: root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V.32bis and V.17 approved by CCITT
Message-ID: <7181.28014A84@zswamp.fidonet.org>
Date: 8 Apr 91 17:33:01 GMT
Organization: Izot's Swamp BBS - Kitchener, Ontario
Lines: 37

George Robbins (grr@cbmvax.commodore.com ) wrote:

 >In article <7151.27F9618A@zswamp.fidonet.org> 
 >root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
>    (Or am I displaying ignorance about the size of UUCP-g ACK/NAK packets?)

 >Broad category, yes, numbers no.  UUCP requires a ~1:10 back 
 >channel ratio, the HST provides a 1:32 ratio.

   That explains much!

 >USR might have been able squeeze in a 450 or 600 baud back channel

   They did. A 450 bps backchannel, with a 1:10 ratio as you describe, should 
lead to roughly 4500 bps performance... which explains the 380 CPS speed limit 
on UUCP-g over HST.

 >The fault is largely in the standard Unix "g" protocol 
 >implementation, the
 >protocol provides for negotiated packet sizes which would 
 >work acceptably with
 >the HST, however the implementation is (9 cases of 10) 
 >broken and there is no
 >way to actually specify that you want to use larger packet 
 >sizes.

   I've experimented with this and have also found that problem.
 

--  
UUCP:     watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent
Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org     | Kitchener, Ontario
FidoNet:  SYSOP, 1:221/171            | N2M 5E6 CANADA
Data:     (519) 742-8939              | (519) 741-9553
The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent 
steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be
failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. -- me