Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!osiris.cso.uiuc.edu!hamilton
From: hamilton@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: TrailBlazer and UUCP
Message-ID: <10500001@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Aug 88 01:56:00 GMT
References: <4643163@<KPETERSEN>
Lines: 17
Nf-ID: #R:<KPETERSEN:-464316357:osiris.cso.uiuc.edu:10500001:000:893
Nf-From: osiris.cso.uiuc.edu!hamilton    Aug 29 20:56:00 1988


don speck(?) says:
> N.B. Packet sizes larger than the tty input buffer won't decrease the
> read() overhead any further, and big packets are inefficient for small
> files, so you don't want to negotiate any higher than 256 bytes.

[i hope i'm not putting my foot in my mouth by speaking before checking...]
what would it hurt to negotiate a huge *max* packet size (say, 1024+),
since you can always send smaller packets.  every packet carries a size
field; if the code is written correctly, packets only as large as needed
will be sent.  i modified my uupc to do this, but when my uucp neighbor
sent me 256-byte "HY" messages, i took it out again.

	wayne hamilton
	U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL
UUCP:	{ihnp4,seismo,pur-ee,uunet}!uiucuxc!osiris!hamilton
ARPA:	hamilton@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu	USMail:	Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801
CSNET:	hamilton%osiris@uiuc.csnet	Phone:	(217)333-8703