Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!ziploc!eps
From: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: notes for people installing NeXT SLIP
Message-ID: <1800@toaster.SFSU.EDU>
Date: 28 Jun 91 02:57:38 GMT
References: <1991Jun27.071351.17884@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Jun27.124556.27545@ni.umd.edu>
Reply-To: eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Organization: San Francisco State University
Lines: 12

In article <1991Jun27.124556.27545@ni.umd.edu>
	louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
>I'm surpised to hear this.  I'm using a non-hardware flow controlled
>connection to my modem at 9600 BPS, and it has worked just fine.

I have to agree with Mark--I tried 9600 BPS w/o hardware flow
control, and I was getting complaints from the zs driver about
stuff coming in too fast.  Not often enough that TCP couldn't
recover, but often enough to be annoying.  With hardware flow
control I was able to run at 38.4Kb with no problems whatsoever.

					-=EPS=-