From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Mar 20 04:46:37 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA00420
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:46:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA00413
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA14081; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:45:37 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
cc: lehey.pad@sni.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, isdn@muc.ditec.de
Subject: Re: ISDN: "modem" or board? (Was: Microsoft "Get ISDN"?) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Mar 1996 17:11:18 +1030."
             <199603200641.RAA05914@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> 
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:45:37 -0800
Message-ID: <14079.827325937@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Ah, sorry Jordan.  He's quite correct. 
> 
> 64kb/sec of _data_ requires 80kb/sec on an async line, because you have
> to _add_ start and stop bits to _make_ it async.

Sigh.  Maybe I'm just dense, but I never saw the part of this
conversation where we were talking about CONVERTING from sync to
async, I assumed that you'd either be talking sync-sync on both sides
or doing async-async and skipping the overhead because you'd never
_get_ 64Kbps of syncronous data from the other end to pad out with
start and stop bits.

Yes, you and Greg are perfectly correct then and I'm arguing a totally
different and erroneous argument.  I'll shut up now and spare -hackers
any more input on ISDN from this end.. :-)

					Jordan