🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <983921900.3790.0.nnrp-08.9e984b4b@news.demon.co.uk>, Karl 
Tremain <x@x.x> writes
>just a quick question
>
>im using windows 2000 server (sp1) and the BT Speedway ISDN card
>
>which option should i choose for Link Compression:
>
>(taken from webpassword/advanced)
>Select Link Compression:     None Stac Draft-9 MS-Stac
>
>and once chosen on demon's site do i need to change anything in the dial-up
>settings?
>
>TIA
>KArl
>
>
>
Win2k only supports the 'none' option from those listed, I'm afraid.
-- 
Dave Hazelgrove

+++Out-of-cucumber error+++ Please re-install universe and re-boot.

"Karl Tremain" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:983921900.3790.0.nnrp-08.9e984b4b@news.demon.co.uk...
> just a quick question
>
> im using windows 2000 server (sp1) and the BT Speedway ISDN card
>
> which option should i choose for Link Compression:
>
> (taken from webpassword/advanced)
> Select Link Compression:     None Stac Draft-9 MS-Stac
>
> and once chosen on demon's site do i need to change anything in the
dial-up
> settings?

Windows2000 doesn't support any of the options offered by Demon directly.
That's because MS removed STAC compression when the moved from NT to 2000.

However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs. I
successfully use the Blue ROMP with compression under 2000. I have my
compression option on the WebPassword page set to 'MS-STAC'.

NOTE: a lot of the other ROMP's kit will not negotiate this new type of
compression (for example, the surftime numbers IIRC). So the most important
thing to check is the number you are dialling.

I would suggest you get it working with Blue first, then try the other
ROMPs. If you need any more help with configuration settings (or how to
setup dual channel or bandwidth on demand under 2000 etc) let me know.

HTH, Loz.

"Lawrence Groves" <lgroves@mail.hadenmac.com> wrote in message
news:984vvb$dja$1@soap.pipex.net...
> "Karl Tremain" <x@x.x> wrote in message
> news:983921900.3790.0.nnrp-08.9e984b4b@news.demon.co.uk...
> > just a quick question
> >
> > im using windows 2000 server (sp1) and the BT Speedway ISDN card
> >
> > which option should i choose for Link Compression:
> >
> > (taken from webpassword/advanced)
> > Select Link Compression:     None Stac Draft-9 MS-Stac
> >
> > and once chosen on demon's site do i need to change anything in the
> dial-up
> > settings?
>
> Windows2000 doesn't support any of the options offered by Demon directly.
> That's because MS removed STAC compression when the moved from NT to 2000.

so would you reccommend that i wipe my server & install nt4sp6? because i
can and will do that if it means a potentially faster connection :)

> However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs. I
> successfully use the Blue ROMP with compression under 2000. I have my
> compression option on the WebPassword page set to 'MS-STAC'.
>
> NOTE: a lot of the other ROMP's kit will not negotiate this new type of
> compression (for example, the surftime numbers IIRC). So the most
important
> thing to check is the number you are dialling.
>
> I would suggest you get it working with Blue first, then try the other
> ROMPs. If you need any more help with configuration settings (or how to
> setup dual channel or bandwidth on demand under 2000 etc) let me know.

i only use the blue romp occasionally for dual isdn when i want to d/l a
large file quickly, i mainly sit on the surftime isdn number - i would like
to get compression enabled on the surftime number and as i said above, i
will install nt4 if thats what it takes to achieve this.  or would there be
some other way of doing it? hardware? 3rd party software util?

does the bt speedway card support any form of hardware compression? if not
are there any other TA's on the market that do (and of course work perfectly
with demon :)

TIA
KArl

In article <983980066.23380.0.nnrp-02.9e984b4b@news.demon.co.uk>, Karl
Tremain <x@x.x> writes

>i only use the blue romp occasionally for dual isdn when i want to d/l a
>large file quickly, i mainly sit on the surftime isdn number - i would like
>to get compression enabled on the surftime number and as i said above, i
>will install nt4 if thats what it takes to achieve this.  or would there be
>some other way of doing it? hardware? 3rd party software util?

>does the bt speedway card support any form of hardware compression? if not
>are there any other TA's on the market that do (and of course work perfectly
>with demon :)

Windows 2000 doesn't support the compression that Demon use on their
Surftime numbers. A number of people have made very vague comments about
their particular TA 'appearing' to work with compression under Windows
2000/Demon Surftime. The TA I am thinking of is one of the Eicon DIVA
range. However I have seen no proof that it does offer compression in
this configuration and, until I have, I am assuming it doesn't. I
couldn't find anything on their web site in relation to this.

In my opinion, your choice is to set up a separate machine, running an
OS that does support the correct compression. Linux does. I am not sure
if NT does. 

Alternatively buy a dedicated router. I did and I don't regret it.
-- 
David Thornton

"David Thornton" </dev/null@davidthornton.com> wrote in message
news:xTjJs8CUylp6EwOm@davidthornton.com...

> Alternatively buy a dedicated router. I did and I don't regret it.

any suggestion as to which one?

KArl

In article <983981970.24225.0.nnrp-02.9e984b4b@news.demon.co.uk>, Karl
Tremain <x@x.x> writes

>any suggestion as to which one?

Depends on your budget. I and twelve others picked up discontinued 3Com
OfficeConnect routers for just over 100UKP a couple of weeks ago.
However they have all gone now. :-(

If you can afford something by Cisco (maybe the 700 series) then I'd say
go for it (if you really want to get into routing). I have also heard
good reports about Linksys and Zyxel. Asustek also do one which I looked
into (www.solwise.co.uk sell it). However I cannot comment further on
them since I have no experience with using them.
-- 
David Thornton

Previously, David Thornton </dev/null@davidthornton.com> wrote

>If you can afford something by Cisco (maybe the 700 series) then I'd say
>go for it (if you really want to get into routing). I have also heard
>good reports about Linksys and Zyxel. Asustek also do one which I looked
>into (www.solwise.co.uk sell it). However I cannot comment further on
>them since I have no experience with using them.

I've got the ASUSCom INET 800 from Solwise, and had it since 
October/November time. Absolutely no complaints from this end 
whatsoever, very easy to set up, works totally transparently, and I 
can't get over quite how nice a connection via ISDN is.
-- 
Stephen M Baines                        http://www.motorsport.org.uk
http://www.nuvolari.co.uk/me

http://www.rosehill.org.uk for Ruddygore

In demon.service.isdn David Thornton </dev/null@davidthornton.com> wrote:
> In article <983981970.24225.0.nnrp-02.9e984b4b@news.demon.co.uk>, Karl
> Tremain <x@x.x> writes

>>any suggestion as to which one?

> Depends on your budget. I and twelve others picked up discontinued 3Com
> OfficeConnect routers for just over 100UKP a couple of weeks ago.
> However they have all gone now. :-(

> If you can afford something by Cisco (maybe the 700 series) then I'd say
> go for it (if you really want to get into routing). I have also heard
> good reports about Linksys and Zyxel. Asustek also do one which I looked

The only bad thing I've got to say about my Zyxel (Prestige 100)
is the poor implementation of compression...

And as for whether it is worth changing software/hardware for
something that does support the same kind of compression that
is available on whichever Demon ROMP one might use, well that
depends on quite a lot of factors. Though IMO it would only
be worth it if the main use is news/mail and web-pages with
no images, as most other usage will involve files that are
already compressed.

-- 
<URL:http://www.pierrot.co.uk/>                                  Team AMIGA
I'm having fun HITCHHIKING to CINCINNATI or FAR ROCKAWAY!!

In article <20010307.192403.9E9801DE.5Laa@pierrot.co.uk>, Terrance
Richard Boyes <tez@pierrot.co.uk> writes
>In demon.service.isdn David Thornton </dev/null@davidthornton.com> wrote:
>> In article <983981970.24225.0.nnrp-02.9e984b4b@news.demon.co.uk>, Karl
>> Tremain <x@x.x> writes
>
>>>any suggestion as to which one?
>
>> Depends on your budget. I and twelve others picked up discontinued 3Com
>> OfficeConnect routers for just over 100UKP a couple of weeks ago.
>> However they have all gone now. :-(
>
>> If you can afford something by Cisco (maybe the 700 series) then I'd say
>> go for it (if you really want to get into routing). I have also heard
>> good reports about Linksys and Zyxel. Asustek also do one which I looked
>
>The only bad thing I've got to say about my Zyxel (Prestige 100)
>is the poor implementation of compression...
>

Compression works fine on my Prestige 100 connecting to the G5 number. I
have MS-STAC set at the Demon end.
-- 
Norman Lynagh

In demon.service.isdn Norman Lynagh <norman@weather-consultancy.com> wrote:
> In article <20010307.192403.9E9801DE.5Laa@pierrot.co.uk>, Terrance
> Richard Boyes <tez@pierrot.co.uk> writes

[snip]

>>The only bad thing I've got to say about my Zyxel (Prestige 100)
>>is the poor implementation of compression...
>>

> Compression works fine on my Prestige 100 connecting to the G5 number. I
> have MS-STAC set at the Demon end.

Just tried it again, in case there's been any change, and what
immediately happens...

63     407077 PP09  WARN  CCP Stac protocol error; recv'd 0x523e

A few of those stack up and the Prestige either pauses, drops
the line, or occasionally crashes.

Though I'm still using RAS V2.20, since when I tried upgrading
it a while ago the router failed to reboot.

-- 
<URL:http://www.pierrot.co.uk/>                                  Team AMIGA
APL is a mistake, carried through to perfection.  It is the language of
the future for the problems of the past: it creates a new generation of
coding bums.

In message <984vvb$dja$1@soap.pipex.net>, Lawrence Groves 
<lgroves@mail.hadenmac.com> writes
>Windows2000 doesn't support any of the options offered by Demon 
>directly.

That's not quite true. Demon's configurator interacts differently with 
the various ROMPs. With the Ascend kit (Purple including g4 and g5, also 
Red) it pretty much tells it what to offer, but the 3Com kit (Green) and 
Cisco kit (Blue) doesn't pay a lot of attention. Blue offers compression 
types that can't be configured via Web Password that work with NT 4 RAS 
and Windows 2000 - I believe Green does, too.


>That's because MS removed STAC compression when the moved from NT to 
>2000.

I've read that before in demon.service.isdn, and it's wrong. Microsoft 
didn't remove any compression options from Windows 2000. Windows 2000's 
dial up code is based on NT4's RAS, which equally doesn't have any 
support for STAC compression. Even Microsoft wouldn't, I'm sure, take 
out useful features when producing the next version for no good reason.

Windows 9x/ME has STAC compression, but that's a completely different 
code base. Despite the name, Windows 2000 is NT 5 - I can't think that 
there's very much code in it that's been stolen from Windows 9x.


>However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs. 
>I successfully use the Blue ROMP with compression under 2000. I have my 
>compression option on the WebPassword page set to 'MS-STAC'.

Correct - and it's recommended you set MS_STAC, though I have a feeling 
it's not strictly necessary.

>NOTE: a lot of the other ROMP's kit will not negotiate this new type of
>compression (for example, the surftime numbers IIRC). So the most 
>important thing to check is the number you are dialling.

The Ascend kit, as I've said, doesn't offer any compression types that 
will work with NT / Windows 2000.




David
-- 
David Wood
david@wood2.org.uk

"David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
news:6AVf3bFPWtp6EA$H@wood2.org.uk...
> In message <984vvb$dja$1@soap.pipex.net>, Lawrence Groves
<lgroves@mail.hadenmac.com> writes
> >Windows2000 doesn't support any of the options offered by Demon
> >directly.
>
> That's not quite true. Demon's configurator interacts differently with
> the various ROMPs. With the Ascend kit (Purple including g4 and g5, also
> Red) it pretty much tells it what to offer, but the 3Com kit (Green) and
> Cisco kit (Blue) doesn't pay a lot of attention. Blue offers compression
> types that can't be configured via Web Password that work with NT 4 RAS
> and Windows 2000 - I believe Green does, too.
>
> >However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs.
> >I successfully use the Blue ROMP with compression under 2000. I have my
> >compression option on the WebPassword page set to 'MS-STAC'.
>
> Correct - and it's recommended you set MS_STAC, though I have a feeling
> it's not strictly necessary.
>
> >NOTE: a lot of the other ROMP's kit will not negotiate this new type of
> >compression (for example, the surftime numbers IIRC). So the most
> >important thing to check is the number you are dialling.
>
> The Ascend kit, as I've said, doesn't offer any compression types that
> will work with NT / Windows 2000.

bummer :(

what kind of compression (if any) _DOES_ the ascend kit support?

KArl

"David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
news:6AVf3bFPWtp6EA$H@wood2.org.uk...
> In message <984vvb$dja$1@soap.pipex.net>, Lawrence Groves
> <lgroves@mail.hadenmac.com> writes
> >Windows2000 doesn't support any of the options offered by Demon
> >directly.
>
> That's not quite true. Demon's configurator interacts differently with
> the various ROMPs. With the Ascend kit (Purple including g4 and g5, also
> Red) it pretty much tells it what to offer, but the 3Com kit (Green) and
> Cisco kit (Blue) doesn't pay a lot of attention. Blue offers compression
> types that can't be configured via Web Password that work with NT 4 RAS
> and Windows 2000 - I believe Green does, too.


That's exactly what I said.... if you had read the next sentence:

-----> However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs


> >That's because MS removed STAC compression when the moved from NT to
> >2000.
>
> I've read that before in demon.service.isdn, and it's wrong. Microsoft
> didn't remove any compression options from Windows 2000. Windows 2000's
> dial up code is based on NT4's RAS, which equally doesn't have any
> support for STAC compression. Even Microsoft wouldn't, I'm sure, take
> out useful features when producing the next version for no good reason.


I think you are wrong. It appears that MS now *only* implements STAC option
4 under Windows 2000. Presumably, this is not supported by certain older kit
that you may wish to connect with.

There is a demonstratable difference between the number of ROMPs I can
connect to with compression using NT verses 2000 on my dual boot system. I
get compression on MORE using NT4.

Since when did MS *not* remove useful features (or do anything else for that
matter) for no good reason??? You are having a laugh, aren't you??


> Windows 9x/ME has STAC compression, but that's a completely different
> code base. Despite the name, Windows 2000 is NT 5 - I can't think that
> there's very much code in it that's been stolen from Windows 9x.


I agree. However, I wouldn't be surprised if 2000's code was based on RRAS
not RAS from NT4. Anyone with any sense has been using that code for
years... as a RAS replacement under NT. There are very major differences
(although I couldn't swear about any in this specific area) between the two
products. But that could in part explain what I have noted above (I use RAS
at home, RRAS at work. I have no need for the routing stuff with only one
computer at home).


> >However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs.
> >I successfully use the Blue ROMP with compression under 2000. I have my
> >compression option on the WebPassword page set to 'MS-STAC'.
>
> Correct - and it's recommended you set MS_STAC, though I have a feeling
> it's not strictly necessary.
>
> >NOTE: a lot of the other ROMP's kit will not negotiate this new type of
> >compression (for example, the surftime numbers IIRC). So the most
> >important thing to check is the number you are dialling.
>
> The Ascend kit, as I've said, doesn't offer any compression types that
> will work with NT / Windows 2000.

Agreed.

Regards, Loz.

In article <98abpa$6pp$1@soap.pipex.net>, Lawrence Groves
<lgroves@mail.hadenmac.com> writes
>"David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:6AVf3bFPWtp6EA$H@wood2.org.uk...
>> In message <984vvb$dja$1@soap.pipex.net>, Lawrence Groves
>> <lgroves@mail.hadenmac.com> writes
>> >Windows2000 doesn't support any of the options offered by Demon
>> >directly.
>>
>> That's not quite true. Demon's configurator interacts differently with
>> the various ROMPs. With the Ascend kit (Purple including g4 and g5, also
>> Red) it pretty much tells it what to offer, but the 3Com kit (Green) and
>> Cisco kit (Blue) doesn't pay a lot of attention. Blue offers compression
>> types that can't be configured via Web Password that work with NT 4 RAS
>> and Windows 2000 - I believe Green does, too.
>
>
>That's exactly what I said.... if you had read the next sentence:
>
>-----> However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs
>
>
>> >That's because MS removed STAC compression when the moved from NT to
>> >2000.
>>
>> I've read that before in demon.service.isdn, and it's wrong. Microsoft
>> didn't remove any compression options from Windows 2000. Windows 2000's
>> dial up code is based on NT4's RAS, which equally doesn't have any
>> support for STAC compression. Even Microsoft wouldn't, I'm sure, take
>> out useful features when producing the next version for no good reason.
>
>
>I think you are wrong. It appears that MS now *only* implements STAC option
>4 under Windows 2000. Presumably, this is not supported by certain older kit
>that you may wish to connect with.
>
>There is a demonstratable difference between the number of ROMPs I can
>connect to with compression using NT verses 2000 on my dual boot system. I
>get compression on MORE using NT4.
>
>Since when did MS *not* remove useful features (or do anything else for that
>matter) for no good reason??? You are having a laugh, aren't you??
>
>
>> Windows 9x/ME has STAC compression, but that's a completely different
>> code base. Despite the name, Windows 2000 is NT 5 - I can't think that
>> there's very much code in it that's been stolen from Windows 9x.
>
>
>I agree. However, I wouldn't be surprised if 2000's code was based on RRAS
>not RAS from NT4. Anyone with any sense has been using that code for
>years... as a RAS replacement under NT. 

RRAS is included in W2000 server & 'improved' Steelhead (RRAS) was an
optional addition for NT4
>
>> >However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs.
>> >I successfully use the Blue ROMP with compression under 2000. I have my
>> >compression option on the WebPassword page set to 'MS-STAC'.
>>
>> Correct - and it's recommended you set MS_STAC, though I have a feeling
>> it's not strictly necessary.
>>
>> >NOTE: a lot of the other ROMP's kit will not negotiate this new type of
>> >compression (for example, the surftime numbers IIRC). So the most
>> >important thing to check is the number you are dialling.
>>
>> The Ascend kit, as I've said, doesn't offer any compression types that
>> will work with NT / Windows 2000.

According to 3com Ms Stac is Stac-Extended, though connecting to other
3com routers they suggest Stac (the default) so perhaps when connecting
to the green romp with a 3com router one ought to use that.
Isn't it a bit academic in any case as most of the larger downloads I
take are of compressed stuff zips, iso images etc which aren't going to
compress much or at all?

John Chapple