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