Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)

To: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)
From: "Kevin A. Smith" <kevin@ascend.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:52:41 -0800
Cc: ascend-users@bungi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980220184902.20155D-100000@babylon.erols.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19980220075815.0094bdf0@darla.ascend.com>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 06:50 PM 2/20/98 -0500, Jason Nealis wrote:
>> However when it comes to Windows and modems, it seems that STAC is best
>> avoided. You should only rely on V.42 for compression in the modems. STAC
>> seems to make performance worse in 99% of the cases.
>
> Really?, This is the first I've heard this, Can you tell me why? 

STAC compresses the data in the payload, which is then passed to the modem
and it *attempts* to re-compress it using V.42 compression - that *can*
sometimes be a bad thing. 

>Also who wins in the PPP setup if both V.42 and STAC is offered
>what does the 95 box do ?

V.42 is negotiated at the modem/carrier level before PPP even gets started.


Kevin


++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)

From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com>

Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)

From: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) 2 minute timeout
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread