Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Microcom's misleading modem ad
Keywords: telebit trailblazer, V.42, uucp, compress
Message-ID: <9345@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 14 May 89 15:30:41 GMT
References: <28111@cci632.UUCP> <1937@edison.GE.COM> <534@visdc.UUCP> <9342@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <May.13.21.50.46.1989.3171@ron.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 15

>> This is incorrect.  Uucp sends multiple packets before needing an 
>> acknowledgement.  If uucp used larger packets, it would work fine (ie, 
>> have good performance) on these other modems.
>
>Or sent more of them before blocking.  The problem is not so much the


The problem with just sending more of them is that many of these 
modems have a large turn around delay that you want to avoid as much 
as possible.  Others have a small reverse channel that the acks for 
small packets don't fit in.  

-- 
  Jon Zeeff			zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
  Ann Arbor, MI			sharkey!b-tech!zeeff