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)