Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 18:15:21 +0100 From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Subject: Re: improving transport over lossy links ? Message-ID: <20060521171521.GA29990@uk.tiscali.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20060521104147.081af2d8@64.7.153.2> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20060519110026.05820230@64.7.153.2> <Pine.BSF.3.96.1060520014045.15967A-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au> <6.2.3.4.0.20060519121104.1126b480@64.7.153.2> <20060521092602.GB20262@uk.tiscali.com> <6.2.3.4.0.20060521104147.081af2d8@64.7.153.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:09:23AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > The internal USR seems to correctly see the carrier drop and PPP > hence sees it. However, the 2 external Intels I am experimenting > with on the USB serial ports do not. USB-serial adaptors tend to be very broken, unfortunately. I don't know about under Windows, but under FreeBSD/Linux where drivers seem to be reverse-engineered, several I've tried don't seem to handshake properly. I tried two back-to-back to run a local pppd link and it failed (haven't had time to debug that one) IMO there's no substitute for a real COM port. > (not sure why, but chats tx/rx are for all calls in the pas 216 days, > not just this one). This is in the past 4hours. Perhaps with this > one, I am just better off telling it not to try v.90. A pair of analogue modems will never negotiate v90, as for this one end has to be digitally connected (typically T1/E1 trunk, although in theory you might be able to find a modem which is physically connected as ISDN BRI but which supports v90 analogue modulation) The best you'll get is v34bis (33.6K) Regards, Brian.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060521171521.GA29990>