🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Sutterfield (bob@MorningStar.Com) wrote:
: 
:    "... speedwise PPP could translate into a tenfold improvement over
:    SLIP"
: 
: Actually, that's attributed to someone from HDS, a company that
: recently started shipping "its own version of PPP" with its X
: terminals.  The article says they started shipping PPP "after rigorous
: performance testing of PPP and SLIP," but I haven't been able to
: reproduce their results.
: 
:    NOW is that really true. I mean I thought I was getting almost all
:    I could bet from my POTS line using SLIP. Can it really be true
:    that PPP is really that much superior to SLIP?
: 
: That's marketing hype.  Don't believe it.  They're constrained, like
: everyone else, by (1) the amount of user data that must traverse the
: link, and (2) current modem technology.  Since it's the same amount of
: user data, and since they're presumably using the same type modem,
: there's no difference between PPP and SLIP.

I suspect that they are mixing apples and oranges in the package. What HDS
was probably referring to was an X protocol speed improvement, which they
probably got by both using Van Jacobson's header compression to get 40
byte IP/TCP headers down to 5 or 6 bytes AND compressing the average 32 byte
short X protocol request/reply down to 5 or 6 bytes.

That IS 10-fold; 5 x for each "header". But nothing to do with PPP vs SLIP
without header compression.

Ted Rypma
HP Panacom Division
(A happy user of X over CSLIP at 38.4 Kbps)