Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:5871 comp.mail.uucp:1053
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!eagle!icdoc!lmjm
From: lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Packet size & number of windows in UUCP
Message-ID: <211@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Feb 88 13:58:59 GMT
References: <567@acornrc.UUCP> <13668@pyramid.pyramid.com> <788@vixie.UUCP> <398@cogen.UUCP> <157@istop.ist.CO.UK> <15322@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Reply-To: lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin)
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK.
Lines: 53
Keywords: UUCP, packets, windows, tweaks, performance

In article <15322@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>> ukc (University of Kent U.K.) have had a version of uucp (I believe it
>> is a p.d. version) that one can specify both packet-size and # of windows
>> in the L.sys file.
>
>The "packet and window size" in UKUUCP refers to the X.25 packet and window
>size, negotiated all call request time by the two X.25 DTEs. It is entirely
>different from the uucico 'g' protocol window and packet size. In fact, when
>to X.25 sites connect, they aren't using 'g' protocol at all; they use 'f'.
As I mentioned in a recent posting UKUUCP IS NOT PD.
The packet and window size do refer to the 'g' protocol - NOT the X25
packet and window driver.  Not all X.25 sites use 'f' some still use 'g'
depending on how they access X.25 in the first place.

There is an X25 device driver in UKUUCP to control a York-Box.  UKC doesn't
use this.  You have to get it seperately from the main distribution from
one of the two sites who use it.

>
>A pity they had to add another field to L.sys to do this. I rather like the
>way we do it here, with subfields in the fifth field:

I could almost agree with this.  But the login script under UKUUCP is
quite different as well.  So it doesn't really make much difference.
UKUUCP pre-dates HDB by a long time (its V7 based after all!) so I
didn't have its lead to follow.

>
>But alas, our UUCP won't talk to ukc. I'm going to find out why, someday....
>

Well I've not had many problems with any version I've come across unless
they redefine some of the initial protocol flags.  Eg EUUG-UUCP uses the
-p flag for some purpose that clashes with UKUUCP.  We just don't exchange
this flag.

>In article <157@istop.ist.CO.UK> neil@ist.CO.UK (Neil Todd) writes:
>>UKUUCP is not written by UKC, it derives for HB (I believe)....
>
See my other posting for details about UKUUCP.
Message-ID: <210@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Feb 88 17:11:52 GMT

If you have any queries about it please mail me.

	Lee
--
UKUUCP SUPPORT  Lee McLoughlin
	"What you once thought was only a nightmare is now a reality!"

Janet: lmjm@uk.ac.ic.doc, lmcl@uk.ac.ukc
DARPA: lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (or lmjm%uk.ac.ic.doc@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk)
Uucp:  lmjm@icdoc.UUCP, ukc!icdoc!lmjm