Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:42:32 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: lehey.pad@sni.de (Greg Lehey) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, isdn@muc.ditec.de Subject: Re: Microsoft "Get ISDN"? Message-ID: <199603141642.KAA22125@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199603141621.RAA24988@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> from "Greg Lehey" at Mar 14, 96 05:17:39 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > True (well, I haven't seen lossage using 16550's, but anyone using 16450's > > deserves what they get). > > I think you would do at 160 kb/s. Maybe, but I don't at 230 kb/s. > >> 4. You can't run raw IP over them, mainly because of (3). > > > > I don't see people running "raw IP" over sync lines, either. It's generally > > run via PPP or Cisco or some other protocol.. you can certainly run PPP or > > SLIP over an async ISDN connection as well. > > You don't in the US, but it's the standard (if not only) way to do it > over ISDN here in Germany. That wouldn't work well here, mainly because most folks don't have control over both ends of the link. Most folks will connect to a service provider who is using PPP on V.120 or somesuch... > >> 5. You can't use them for connect on demand. The board solution can > >> allow the system to disconnect after a certain idle time, and then > >> reconnect when another packet arrives (from either side). > > > > Eh, really????? Wow. And here I thought iijppp had these features built > > in. Silly me. ;-) > > Looks like I might be behind the times here. Is this with the call > setup time you mention below? I haven't tried it with iijppp. I run all my dedicated connections through SLIP, because they're nailed up 24/7... > >> 6. I'm not sure about this, but I believe call setup is slower. On a > >> direct connect board, call setup is round 2 seconds. This is > >> particularly important for point (5). > > > > Call setup for a dual-channel ISDN link around here is about two seconds, > > maybe three, but it's doing more work than a single link. > > > > I have no idea why you think a direct connect board would be faster. You > > are being limited by the rate at which you can chat with the switch and how > > fast the switch can set up the call (possibly involving more than one > > switch). > > Well, for one thing you need to transfer your data to and from the > "modem", and in most ppp environments I've seen various delays. But > to be honest, I've never bothered trying it with ISDN "modems". The > only ones I have used (Elink) were so temperamental that I could > hardly get an interactive connection running. It still shouldn't take long... > > In my opinion, it's always great when you can leverage off of pre-existing > > technology. The TA's play right into the fact that support for serial > > devices like modems is widespread and well tested. It's a zero effort > > solution.. > > Hmm. I'm not in favour of change for change's sake either. But I've > had much pain running PPP and SLIP on analogue links, and once I got > past the pain of setting up ISPA (mainly the result of impossibly bad > documentation), it just works. The router never crashes, I always > (well, almost) get my connection, and I need zero setup on any other > machine in the net (well, I have to tell them the default gateway). Maybe that's part of the difference, I've had lots of good luck running connections via SLIP and PPP. "Not a problem here" ;-) ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/546-7968
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603141642.KAA22125>