Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 21:40:45 -0800 (PST) From: Rob Mallory <rmallory@wiley.csusb.edu> To: lehey.pad@sni.de (Greg Lehey) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Microsoft "Get ISDN"? Message-ID: <199603150540.VAA22075@wiley.csusb.edu> In-Reply-To: <199603141651.RAA26850@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> from "Greg Lehey" at Mar 14, 96 05:47:34 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> OK. I'm looking from the other viewpoint: small user, expensive phone > call time, but still an itch in my fingers that makes the 2 seconds > seem interminable too. It's my gut feeling that ppp setup would take > significantly longer. If anybody has any hard figures, I'd be > interested to hear them. Either way, of course, that doesn't alter > the fact that ppp represents protocol overhead which you don't need > under ISDN. > > Greg > >From here at work, "dialing" out of a big pipline box with many lines into it, and over to my pipeline-50 at home: $ time ping mymachine mymachine.qualcomm.com is alive real 6.2 after that, round-trip pings are 42ms. This is the setup time. In preaty much any-case, (raw/slip/mslip/ppp/mppp/ frame-relay) your total setup time is preaty much dependant on dialup-time. in the setup of my box, I am running multilink-ppp, VJ header compression, and (v42?) data compression. and am getting 12KB/s ftps, and more with text files when both b'channels are up. I think this will always beat out "raw IP" over isdn. in the long run...even if you have to wait another month or three to afford the cost of a bridge/router such as the pipeline-50 (with a built in NT1 and ethernet out the other end), I'd _not_ buy a simple TA. get the BR... -- Rob Mallory [rmallory@Qualcomm.com]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603150540.VAA22075>