Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!moscom!jgp
From: jgp@moscom.UUCP (Jim Prescott)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: PEP still wins over V.32 (was Re: V.32 will dominate the ma
Summary: Spoofing is good for v.32, just not critical
Message-ID: <1304@moscom.UUCP>
Date: 23 Nov 88 05:25:00 GMT
References: <11079@cup.portal.com> <1247@nusdhub.UUCP>
Reply-To: jgp@moscom.UUCP (Jim Prescott)
Distribution: na
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY
Lines: 23

In article <1247@nusdhub.UUCP> rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) writes:
>in article <11079@cup.portal.com>, David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) says:
>> However, I wouldn't be all that suprised if Telebit was the first on the
>> market with a uucp-spoofing v.32 device.
>Why bother?  There would be no particular gain to spoofing using V.32
>since the connection will not be impared by passing the protocol directly.

There would still be a gain since the modem can ack faster than the remote
site can.  A packet can take up to 70ms to go cross country and back.  At
9600 even a 7 window g protocol stalls when the delay is over ~40ms.

A better reason to say "why bother" is that it would only be useful
when connecting to v.32 modems that have uucp-spoofing but do not have
PEP.  Are there really going to be that many vendors who care enough
about unix and pc transfers to add the spoofing code and not add PEP
(especially since they will almost certainly have at least one
competitor with both)?  If you have PEP there isn't any reason to do
uucp transfers with v.32 since PEP will be faster.  I would expect v.32
telebits to be able to make the connection using v.32 and then switch
over to PEP at the same time they negotiate protocol spoofing.
-- 
Jim Prescott	moscom!jgp@cs.rochester.edu
		{rutgers,ames,harvard}!rochester!moscom!jgp