Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!husc6!mit-eddie!fenchurch.mit.edu!jbs
From: jbs@fenchurch.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: X Terminals & SLIP
Message-ID: <9682@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: 14 Jul 88 21:52:50 GMT
References: <8807072305.AA03109@devnull.sun.com> <9740039@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM>
Sender: uucp@eddie.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: jbs@fenchurch.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 24

In article <9740039@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM> diamant@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (John
Diamant) writes (quoting someone else):
>> 1)	There are a number of incompatible versions of SLIP.  The RFC1055
>> 	"generic" version does not cover compression,  which would be important
>> 	for X terminals.
>[...].  It's not clear that compression is really that big a win 
>during interactive use of X.

I suspect that the compression being referred to is header
compression, which *is* critically important for interactive uses of
SLIP, including the proposed use of X over SLIP.  Header compression
reduces the per-packet (and thus the per-round-trip) overhead by
reducing the large and often redundant IP/TCP headers to a few bits in
most cases.

The Telebit TrailblazerPlus modem would probably work OK, as would any
high speed modem with a reasonable turnaround time.  

I have used Telnet over generic SLIP (probably not much worse than X)
at 2400 bps, and it was usable, but not pleasant.  

The TB would work even better if special support for SLIP was provided
(it wasn't last I checked) like it is for UUCP, Kermit, XMODEM, etc.

Jeff Siegal