http://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.dcom.modems/m3ufre6XIEo/discussion
`comp.dcom.modems ›
`T2500's and v.32bis -- rumors?
`8 posts by 7 authors
`Jiro Nakamura
`3/14/91
`Has anyone heard anything about whether Telebit will start supporting
`T2500's with v.32bis? I bounced a message off mod...@telebit.com and
`this is what they said:
`>Subject: Re: V.32bis availability with T2500's
`>Jiro,
`>Telebit will be releasing a V.32bis modem within this year. Sorry I don't
`>have a specific date. We will also offer an upgrade program. There is not
`>an official press release.
` :-( I wonder what type of upgrade it will be. Does the 68000 in
`the T2500 have enough horsepower to run v.32bis? Or maybe the DSP chip?
`Hmmm.....
` I hope I haven't gotten techie in trouble, BTW. (Chances that
`Telebit reads USENET are... ?) I do hope that we can get v.32bis and
`cheaply. Telebit *should* show the world that it is totally behind
`CCITT standards. I also think that PEP needs a little boost and should
`become full duplex.
` If Telebit gets UUCP spoofing running over v.32bis with v.42bis
`(just as it already runs over v.32 with MNP (why not v.42bis????)), then
`I don't see that PEP will remain a viable communications standard unless
`it gets upgraded. Who knows? Maybe Hayes or USRobotics will finally wake
`up and start doing protocol spoofing on their own.
` - Jiro Nakamura
` ji...@shaman.com
`Disclaimer: Just a happy customer of Telebit who doesn't want them to go
`down the drain. Not affiliated with them in any way, except I own a T2500.
`--
`Jiro Nakamura ji...@shaman.com
`Shaman Consulting (607) 253-0687 VOICE
`"Bring your dead, dying shamans here!" (607) 253-7809 FAX/Modem
`Click here to Reply
`Dmitry V. Volodin
`3/15/91
`In <1991Mar14.0...@shaman.com> ji...@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes:
`> If Telebit gets UUCP spoofing running over v.32bis with v.42bis
`>(just as it already runs over v.32 with MNP (why not v.42bis????)), then
`>I don't see that PEP will remain a viable communications standard unless
`>it gets upgraded. Who knows? Maybe Hayes or USRobotics will finally wake
`>up and start doing protocol spoofing on their own.
`You American egocentrist. Just try to run all that nice V.32 thingies
`here in Moscow to get what the Real Life is. :-)
`--
`Dmitry V. Volodin <d...@hq.demos.su> |
`fax: +7 095 233 5016 | Call me Dima ('Dee-...)
`phone: +7 095 231 2129 |
`Bernhard Kroenung
`3/14/91
`Translate message to English
`ji...@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes:
`>become full duplex.
`> If Telebit gets UUCP spoofing running over v.32bis with v.42bis
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`

`
`>(just as it already runs over v.32 with MNP (why not v.42bis????)), then
`>I don't see that PEP will remain a viable communications standard unless
`>it gets upgraded. Who knows? Maybe Hayes or USRobotics will finally wake
`>up and start doing protocol spoofing on their own.
`There are rumors that Telebit expands the PEP-Standard to 23kbit ...
`What about T3000 ?
` Ciao
` Bernhard
`--
`Bernhard Kroenung, Bahnhofstr. 8, D-W6408 Ebersburg/Rhoen, Germany +49 6656 386
`ho...@rhoen.in-berlin.de X.400 : kro...@jlug-gw.uni-giessen.dbp.de
` Fachhochschule Fulda : e-mail demnaext
`Greg Andrews
`3/15/91
`In article <1991Mar14.0...@shaman.com> ji...@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes:
`Has anyone heard anything about whether Telebit will start supporting
`>T2500's with v.32bis? I bounced a message off mod...@telebit.com and
`>this is what they said:
`
`>>
`
` [contents deleted - they said a new modem would be available this year]
`
`>>
`
`>>
`
` :-( I wonder what type of upgrade it will be. Does the 68000 in
`>the T2500 have enough horsepower to run v.32bis? Or maybe the DSP chip?
`>Hmmm.....
`No. That's also the reason PEP hasn't been updated much in the past
`two or three years.
`> I hope I haven't gotten techie in trouble, BTW. (Chances that
`>Telebit reads USENET are... ?)
`Nah. The tech didn't reveal anything he wasn't supposed to. The chances
`Telebit reads Usenet in an official capacity are low, but a couple of folks
`contribute from their own private accounts. (blush)
`>I do hope that we can get v.32bis and cheaply. Telebit *should* show the
`>world that it is totally behind CCITT standards. I also think that PEP
`>needs a little boost and should become full duplex.
`If Telebit weren't interested in CCITT standards, there wouldn't have
`been a T2500, T1500, or T1600. As mod...@telebit.com said, a V.32bis
`modem is forthcoming - it just won't be the T2500.
`> If Telebit gets UUCP spoofing running over v.32bis with v.42bis
`>(just as it already runs over v.32 with MNP (why not v.42bis????)), then
`>I don't see that PEP will remain a viable communications standard unless
`>it gets upgraded. Who knows? Maybe Hayes or USRobotics will finally wake
`>up and start doing protocol spoofing on their own.
`
`hy no protocol spoofing in V.42? Simple - the CCITT wasn't registering
`extensions to the V.42 protocol when Telebit wanted to add protocol support.
`Microcom was willing, so it was implemented in MNP mode. There are some
`"unregistered" extension codes available, but only at the risk of colliding
`with someone else's private V.42 extension... Telebit will keep checking
`with the CCITT so spoofing can be added to V.42 mode also.
`It's been pointed out before that a windowed protocol like uucp doesn't
`really need spoofing when you're running a full duplex modulation. Uucp
`spoofing doesn't gain much in the way of speed over V.32 or V.32bis links
`the way it does over PEP. Still, there are advantages in other areas.
`The modems can disable an inappropriate flow control method (XON/XOFF)
`when the spoofing modem kicks in, solving those types of problems. Error
`recovery can be quicker, since the modems handle the error in the link
`protocol (MNP) rather than the computers dealing with it at a higher level.
`This means a broken packet may not need to have that packet **and all the
`rest of the packets in the window** re-transmitted across the phone line,
`saving time.
`
`>W
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`
`Protocol spoofing over a full duplex modulation will help the most with the
`old stop-and-wait protocols like Xmodem, Ymodem, and the original Kermit.
`Spoofing can make those protocols run as fast as windowed types.
`--
`.-------------------------------------------.
`| Greg Andrews | gandrews@netcom.COM |
``-------------------------------------------'
`Ken Mandelberg
`3/16/91
`In article <28407@netcom.COM>, gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) writes:
`|> >
`|>
`|>
`|> Why no protocol spoofing in V.42? Simple - the CCITT wasn't registering
`|> extensions to the V.42 protocol when Telebit wanted to add protocol support.
`|> Microcom was willing, so it was implemented in MNP mode. There are some
`|> "unregistered" extension codes available, but only at the risk of colliding
`|> with someone else's private V.42 extension... Telebit will keep checking
`|> with the CCITT so spoofing can be added to V.42 mode also.
`|>
`I had been wondering why on the T1600 the "remote access" commands only work
`in MNP mode and not V.42. I guess the reason may be the same as suggested
`above for spoofing.
`****
`By the way, I think its obvious why the upgrade path from the T2500 to
`V.32bis can't be just firmware or a new daughter board, and will
`probably be just some sort of discount on a new modem. The serial side
`of the T2500 (on the motherboard) is apparently stuck at 19.2K max. It
`doesn't seem to make much sense to signal at 14.4K with typically 2
`fold and more compression, if you can't push it out of the back of the
`modem at better than 19.2K. (If Telebit could have increased the serial
`rate with firmware surely they would have already done that to be
`competitive even with the current V.32/V.42BIS modems).
`I think the more interesting question is will the T1600 get V.32BIS
`with new firmware.
`--
`Ken Mandelberg | k...@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED
`Emory University | {rutgers,gatech}!emory!km UUCP
`Dept of Math and CS | km@emory.bitnet NON-DOMAIN BITNET
`Atlanta, GA 30322 | Phone: Voice (404) 727-7963, FAX 727-5611
`Greg Andrews
`3/16/91
`In article <71...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> k...@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) writes:
`>In article <28407@netcom.COM>, gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) writes:
`>|>
`>|> Why no protocol spoofing in V.42? Simple - the CCITT wasn't registering
`>|> extensions to the V.42 protocol when Telebit wanted to add protocol support.
`
`>>
`
`I had been wondering why on the T1600 the "remote access" commands only work
`>in MNP mode and not V.42. I guess the reason may be the same as suggested
`>above for spoofing.
`
`>E
`
`xactly right.
`
`>>
`
`By the way, I think its obvious why the upgrade path from the T2500 to
`>V.32bis can't be just firmware or a new daughter board, and will
`>probably be just some sort of discount on a new modem. The serial side
`>of the T2500 (on the motherboard) is apparently stuck at 19.2K max. It
`>doesn't seem to make much sense to signal at 14.4K with typically 2
`>fold and more compression, if you can't push it out of the back of the
`>modem at better than 19.2K. (If Telebit could have increased the serial
`>rate with firmware surely they would have already done that to be
`>competitive even with the current V.32/V.42BIS modems).
`>
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`
`Even so, a replacement for the 68000 wouldn't help much if the DSP
`processor couldn't handle the modulation. Both the 68000 and the
`32010 were changed (along with most of the support chips).
`
`>>
`
`I think the more interesting question is will the T1600 get V.32BIS
`>with new firmware.
`
`>I
`
` can't tell at this point. Nobody's made an announcement about the
`T1600 and V.32bis. Tech support usually hears about it the same time
`everyone else does to minimize leaks.
`--
`.-------------------------------------------.
`| Greg Andrews | gandrews@netcom.COM |
``-------------------------------------------'
`Paul Nash
`3/17/91
`Thus spake d...@hq.demos.su (Dmitry V. Volodin):
`> In <1991Mar14.0...@shaman.com> ji...@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes:
`> >I don't see that PEP will remain a viable communications standard unless
`> >it gets upgraded.
`
`>>
`
` You American egocentrist. Just try to run all that nice V.32 thingies
`> here in Moscow to get what the Real Life is. :-)
`I agree. V.32 (and especially V.32bis) might be nice, but if you
`want to know what PEP is all about, wait until you have a phone line
`that won't support V.22bis (2400 bps) reliably. I had one until
`a year ago, and I could get about 4800 bps with PEP, while my V.22bis
`modems (Octocomm, Racal and others) all dropped back to V.22 _if they
`could connect at all_.
`Also, for trans-Atlantic (or trans-almost-anything) links, there is
`nothing (IMNASHO) to beat a Trailblazer. I hope that Telebit can
`stay alive, 'cos I want some more T2500s (or whatever their newer
`PEP modem will be).
` ---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---
`Paul Nash Free Range Computer Systems cc
`paul@frcs.UUCP ...!uunet!m2xenix!frcs!paul
`MINIXUG-ONLINE System Manager
`3/22/91
`paul@frcs.UUCP (Paul Nash) wrote:
`>> You American egocentrist. Just try to run all that nice V.32 thingies
`>> here in Moscow to get what the Real Life is. :-)
` I agree. V.32 (and especially V.32bis) might be nice, but if you
`> want to know what PEP is all about, wait until you have a phone line
`> that won't support V.22bis (2400 bps) reliably. I had one until
`> a year ago, and I could get about 4800 bps with PEP, while my V.22bis
`> modems (Octocomm, Racal and others) all dropped back to V.22 _if they
`> could connect at all_.
`I have such a line here. I have an UUCP link to a machine, about 70
`miles from here (also in Holland..). He has to poll me at _1200_ bps
`to get things over at all, and, most of the time, even that fails...
`I set him up with my private T-1000 (I have a CellBlazer for this network
`machine :-), and that solved _all_ problems. He experienced the joy of
`a Telebit talking PEP at 863cps eff. , where V.XYZ failed completely...
`No need to say, that his order for a TB is in the mail... :-)
`> Also, for trans-Atlantic (or trans-almost-anything) links, there is
`> nothing (IMNASHO) to beat a Trailblazer. I hope that Telebit can
`> stay alive, 'cos I want some more T2500s (or whatever their newer
`> PEP modem will be).
`Yes.
`
`>>
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`

`
`Being the European backbone of a hobbyist network (see header :-), I
`have many national, international and trans-atlantice (and, even
`trans-pacific: Japan and Aussie) links. Telebit won my modem contest
`with ease- all other modems gave up sooner or later....
`Fred van Kempen
`wal...@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org
`
`Page 5 of 5