>> Just put up a 28.8 PPP link into cais.com and experienced
>> the following:
>> 1) Telnet and ftp very slow;
>> 2) httpd hopeless;
>> 3) link drops all the time;
>> 4) could do a traceroute but not a ping (!?);
>You probably have config problems...or you tried doing severl net
>intensive things at once. Telnet over 28.8 PPP should be just fine as
>long as you don't try ftp'ing large files at the same time. Running
>Netscape should also be quite bearable. Running an httpd for people
>across the net to access would be a bad idea.
Agreed. Even on a 56Kbps connection it's going to give you
>If the link drops all the time, check you phone lines and then get new
Nope... Check that you have V.34 capable modems on both ends,
and then check that your V.34 connection is established. Also, make
sure that hardware flow control is functioning... You have to give
pppd the crtscts and modem options, ie:
/usr/lib/ppp/pppd /dev/<whatever> 38400 crtscts modem lock <localip>:<remoteip>
Flow control is a big concern... Without that, you're up the
creek... And if you've seen Niagara Falls, you'd know what I mean...
>If ping doesn't work you have problems.
>> Our net use is very important. So we just ordered a FR
>> 56 dedicated to replace the PPP dial up failure. Unless
>> you're a business that can't afford $500 bucks a month, it
>> seems to me that dial up PPP is a very unreliable alternative.
>No offense intended...but if you couldn't get PPP setup, there's no
>guarantee that that throwing faster hardware at the problem will solve
Well, if they are getting FR 56, then it probably will fix the
problem... I just have doubts in the fact that the administration
can't get a simple PPP link up that they'd be able to handle the rest
of the network.
>Sure, I'd prefer 56kb over 28.8, but as I'm a student with free 28.8
>access, I couldn't possibly afford the added expense.
Why? V.34 modems use compression, and most IP traffic is
compressable data... I find that with WWW pages and telnets that a
28.8 Modem where the machines on each end are talking to the modems at
115.2Kbps and hardware flow control is configured propperly I often
exceed the speed of 56Kbps.
Try sending a long text file with Zmodem over a V.34
connection and look at the cps... Then, go figure... I admit that
one FTP transfer of a compressed file will throw a wrench in the
gears, but hey... Then you're at 28.8 for those packets...
>> I'm running the 1.1.94 kernal and pppd seems to work fine, as
>> well as chat, etc. Either the BOCA v.Fast modem is a piece
>> of 'u know what' or PPP just isn't a viable alternative.
>> (BOCA on our end, a good HAYES on the other....)
The only thing I can say is that PPP with 1.1.75 1.1.74, and
below has worked for me flawlessly over the following correctly
o Null Modem
o 28.8 V.34 and V.FC modems.
o Telebit WorldBlazer PEP
o Wireless 56Kbps radio over a distance of 10 miles. (Yes,
And I'm certain that with my experience I could probably make
it fly over two tin cans and a string... ;-)
>Boca is well known for pushing crappy modems, and even for failure to
>stand behind their products and warranties. Don't buy any more BocaModems!
>A $25 charge for swapping a refurb for a dead modem isn't my idea of
>"...replacemnt free of charge for 5 years..." And then they wanted to
>charge me again when the refurb they sent me was DOA. Get a grip, Boca!
I say we boycott them... I sure am...
Quote:>Can you say "no repeat customers"? I know I can.
I have never bought a BOCA modem... Mainly because of the
constant grief I hear about their products from people I tell, "Don't
buy the BOCA..." And then I usually hear, "Oh, but look at the
price!" But then again, these are the same people who go out and buy
the $15.99 ratchet set to rebuild the engine in their 1978 Chevy