Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!MITRE-GATEWAY.ARPA!gross
From: gross@MITRE-GATEWAY.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Looking for DDN/X.25 to TCP/IP router
Message-ID: <8701212006.AA11015@mitre-gateway.arpa>
Date: Wed, 21-Jan-87 15:06:13 EST
Article-I.D.: mitre-ga.8701212006.AA11015
Posted: Wed Jan 21 15:06:13 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Jan-87 21:37:35 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 25
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


> My feelings are that for local connections to the IMP (PSN), 
> 1822DH is far superior if you can get an interface from
> ACC for your system.  A straight 1822DH connection will run
> twice as fast as a comparable X.25 connection simply because 
> the 1822 can signal at about 100-200 Kb/s and you can't connect X.25
> to an IMP faster than 64 Kb/s.  
>  
> All the usual disclaimers apply...
> 
> 			Milo "I love 1822" Medin
> 			NASA Ames/ Bendix Aerospace

Milo,

We have been doing some 1822 vs X.25 comparisons lately.  At first we 
thought we found a major X.25 performance problem but it turned out to
be the vendor's driver.  (For a price, I'll tell you who not to buy...)
We repeated our tests on Mike Petry's machine and actually got reasonable
response.  For hosts on the same Imp, 1822 wins, in cases by a large
margin; but for destinations across the net, the difference begins to
smear out.  By 7 hops away, X.25 wins about half the time.  We have
some nifty graphs that we'll show at the next IETF.

Phill