Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!pyrnj!romain
From: romain@pyrnj.uucp (Romain Kang)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Fast (12KBaud) UUCP 'g' transfer rates over Voice-Grade Lines
Message-ID: <646@pyrnj.uucp>
Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 15:22:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyrnj.646
Posted: Wed Aug 19 15:22:30 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 03:21:05 EDT
References: <4951@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1147@mtune.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: romain@pyrnj.UUCP (Romain Kang)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp, Woodbridge, NJ
Lines: 22
Keywords: Telebit, Trailblazer, caveat

In article <1147@mtune.ATT.COM> jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark) writes:
| Given the
| TrailBlazer's packetizing algorithm, hardware flow control would not
| make any difference to the performance (and my understanding is that
| is *does* support EIA flow control anyway).
[ Hope I didn't take away too much context... ]

Does "dz0: silo overflow" ring any bells?

There's a story about man in China several centuries ago who wanted to
visit the moon.  He had many, many rockets attached to his sedan chair
and had them all lighted at once.  Presumably, his trip was
instantaneous, since he was gone by the time the smoke cleared.
Similarly, high speed data transfer is useful only if your box can
handle it.

After a bit of thought, though, special purpose PROMs could be part of
a movement to more generalized datacom facilities.  I don't see why you
couldn't have a device that speaks PEP at one end, and X.25, IP, or
other protocols at the other.  They could also wind up like those
Ethernet controllers with IP on board that didn't fulfill their
potential.