Thread View: comp.protocols.misc
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Carl S. Gutekunst
Wed, 17 Oct 1990 16:10
Re: SLIP: Why are people so reluctant to use it?
Author: Carl S. Gutekunst
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 1990 16:10
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 1990 16:10
32 lines
2390 bytes
2390 bytes
SLIP is simple to use and quite reliable over serial links where the error rate is low, e.g., over a TrailBlazer or MNP modem, or just plain point-to- point RS-232. SLIP itself has no error correction at all; it just does framing of IP packets, which *do* have a checksum. There are timing problems in pre- 4.3BSD-tahoe kernels that limit throughput, particular in interactive sessions (like telnet or an X server). FTP, NFS, SMTP, and NNTP all work quite well. It is extremely easy to use over a direct wire or leased line. It is not very difficult over a dialup, *if* you have a modem that can autodial a previously stored number when DTR is raised. Someone at NASA Ames (Steve Schoch?) did a little package called slipsh (the SLIP Shell) that makes the dialin procedure more complex, but provides password (i.e., login) security. PPP is really just HDLC asynchronous. A proper implementation is complex, and can be a real CPU hog. Were I to write from scratch, I'd need about 6 weeks, and I'm an HDLC expert. Present PD versions are little more than toys; I don't know who/when someone is going to write a better version that they are willing to give away. (Pyramid's version, if done at all, would be based on priority HDLC code that we already have.) I do not see PPP is a viable replacement for SLIP. It is just way too complex for the job. It does offer vastly increased realiability over noisy links. But I would not consider using a TCP/IP-type protocol over those kinds of links, anyway. If I really want to go big time, I'll run IP right over real HDLC, on synchronous modems, the way Cisco does. Then you have something that you can use over the new cheap 56K DDS lines. Alas, synchronous hardware on UNIX is rare, and far more expensive than asynch.... (But what do I know? I thought implementing uucp 'g' protocol on the Trail- Blazer wouldn't fly, either. :-)) <csg>
Re: SLIP: Why are people so reluctant to use it?
Author: William "Chops" Westfield
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 1990 21:00
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 1990 21:00
21 lines
1483 bytes
1483 bytes
PPP is really just HDLC asynchronous. A proper implementation is
complex, and can be a real CPU hog. Were I to write from scratch, I'd
need about 6 weeks, and I'm an HDLC expert. Present PD versions are
little more than toys; I don't know who/when someone is going to write
a better version that they are willing to give away. (Pyramid's
version, if done at all, would be based on priority HDLC code that we
already have.)
I don't think you understand PPP. It uses HDLC framing, but does not have
a lot of the other baggage that goes along with HDLC. (In particular, it
does NOT do retransmission or assure reliable delivery.) A simple
implementation of PPP (direct SLIP replacement - eg ignore most of the
option negotiation) should take considerably less than 6 man-months.
It should not be that much of a CPU hog, either - the time spent doing
the CRC is software (for async) is easilly outweighed by the interrupt
processing overhead...
BillW
-------
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads