Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site haring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!turing!haring!jim
From: jim@haring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news,net.dcom
Subject: Re: 2400 baud modems and uucp inefficiencies
Message-ID: <313@haring.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Oct-84 02:15:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: haring.313
Posted: Thu Oct  4 02:15:19 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 08:52:59 EDT
References: <184@oliveb.UUCP>
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 22
Xref: mcvax 1623 457
Apparently-To: rnews@turing.LOCAL

Regarding bi-directional UUCP transfers:

The traditional UUCP has two levels of protocol that are relevant
here, the low packet level and the 'request/send' level, which 
constitutes the guts of uucico (in cntrl.c). The low packet level
is easily selectable and this can already be done during the uucico
startup handshake. Making the other protocol selectable is not so
easy, and will also require changing the low level protocols, some
of which assume that the program can only do one thing at a time.

It could be done, but would be a major rewrite of the parts even
HoneyDanBer couldn't refresh. If you can set up a line to have two
multiplexed channels, then you can just run two traditional uucico's
on it using different names at the two ends. I believe HoneyDanBer
allows such name fiddling, but I could be wrong.

X.25 is a better way to go than 2400 baud modems anyway. In fact,
this exceedingly dull message is brought to you by the magic of a
trans-Atlantic X.25 connection at one quarter the cost of an equivalent
dial-up connection.

Jim McKie   Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam    mcvax!jim