Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Using SLIP to link two ethernets?
Message-ID: <2664@phri.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-May-87 14:07:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: phri.2664
Posted: Mon May 18 14:07:55 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 07:44:40 EDT
References: <201108.870516.PAP4@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Distribution: world
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 20
Summary: sometimes asynch is all you've got

In article <201108.870516.PAP4@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> PAP4@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Philip
A. Prindeville") writes:
> I was wondering: why use SLIP?

	We are considering setting up a SLIP connection.  There is a spare
9600 bps STAT-MUX channel on a 56 kbps leased line connecting the two
locations we want to link that we can get access to for free.  We would
love to run sync IP on something like DMR's but even if we could convince
the bean counters to buy the DMR's and lease a private line, we can't run
sync through the MUX.  It's either take the free asynch channel or nothing.
Nowitz and Lesk had the right idea so many years ago when they got UUCP
going -- it's a lot easier to start a network if it doesn't involve
up-front expenditures for hardware.  SLIP may not be as good as "real" IP
on a synch line with smart DMA controllers, but it's a lot better than
dial-up UUCP, and the hardware cost is a lot closer to the latter than the
former.
-- 
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016