Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!sl
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: SLIP under SCO UNIX V3.2.2
Message-ID: <1991May18.071902.22748@wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 18 May 91 07:19:02 GMT
References: <26928@adm.brl.mil>
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Lines: 34

In article <26928@adm.brl.mil> eda@vse.cs (Eda Vopicka) writes:
>
>Please is there anybody with working SLIP connection between two
>386/486 computers (hardwired connection, e.g. no modems) with SCO
>UNIX V3.2.2 and SCO TCP/IP 1.1.1?
>
>We cannot get it working anyway. We have checked our hardware with

We gave up on SCO based slip over a year ago. It probably does work better now 
with TCP/IP 1.1.1 under UNIX than it used to with TCP 1.0 under XENIX. But I 
would still recommend that you look at KA9Q on a pair of cheap PC's. It's

	- faster (Van Jacobsen header compression)
	- more robust (PPP vs. SLIP)
	- easier to setup and configure

There are other advantages as well if you have more than one machine on your
network. For example the router keeps routing even when the machine your where 
going to run SLIP on is down. When you change your main machine you just leave the
router in the corner doing it's thing. You probably won't need to worry about
reconfiguring it.

We ran SLIP for about a year before going to PPP. I would NOT go back to a host
based SLIP given the low cost of KA9Q on a PC. I might be persuaded to move up to a
Netblazer or even a Real*TM router, but I wouldn't go backwards.

What I'd really like to do is get a pair of microwave modems. By line of sight I'm 
only about two miles from a potential Internet connect point. Unfortunately by 
telephone rules it's about 15 miles which makes a leased line cost a fair bit. Maybe
next year ;-)

-- 
Stuart Lynne	Computer Signal Corporation, Canada
		...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) sl@wimsey.bc.ca