Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!eos!ames!mailrus!umix!oxtrap!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V.32 will dominate the marketplace (Was: Re: Which is best?)
Message-ID: <4934@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 14 Nov 88 14:22:33 GMT
References: <2261@looking.UUCP> <1248@nusdhub.UUCP>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Distribution: na
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 15

>
>The problem is that the 1400/100 must REVERSE on directive reversal of
>base data.  Any protocol not "spoofed" which "waits for ACK" will
>trigger TWO FULL TURNAROUNDS PER PACKET.  (what is that under PEP?  20
>carriers? twice.)  The turnaround delay (with retraining?) will
>introduce more of a delay than the 960/960 standing rate.

What we really need is a modem that dynamically adjusts the size of the
reverse channel.  If you are doing a one-way transfer, you get all of your
bandwidth used for one direction.  Bidirectional transfers would split it
50/50 (or whatever).

-- 
Jon Zeeff      		 	Support ISO 8859/1 
umix!b-tech!zeeff  		zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us