Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: MNP vs. uucp 'g' - my solution
Message-ID: <6360@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 29 Sep 89 13:50:28 GMT
References: <125285@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1989Sep27.211826.17398@eci386.uucp>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 17

In article <1989Sep27.211826.17398@eci386.uucp>, clewis@eci386.uucp (Chris Lewis) writes:
that you don't need to use an erro-correcting protocol with MNP because...
> Having checksumming ACK's is only of interest
> when the end-to-end link isn't error free, so if you do have error
> correction and reliable host-modem links (eg: working hardware flow
> control), why bother?

Perhaps because MNP doesn't provide an end-to-end error-free link, unless
it's implemented in the computer. It's only point-to-point (between the
modems) end-to-end you have two non-error-free links: from the computer
to the modem, and then from the modem to the computer at the other end.

-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched            U
 delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)