------Transcript of session follows -------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The intended recipient's mailbox is full.
--- Begin Message ---
------Transcript of session follows -------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The intended recipient's mailbox is full.
--- Begin Message ---
Sure there is CRC in the physical layer encoding, but that will not cause
the IP packet latency he described.
StanTheMan
TheHardwareFreak
www.hardwarefreak.devastation.cc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Hays [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 2:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OT] Qwest + 678
>
>
>
> So with the DMT stardard, the modem and the hardware on the
> other end do
> NO error correction themselves? I find that hard to believe.
> I am not
> trying to make enemies here, but what you are saying is
> illogical. The
> reason we HAVE a DSL modem is that we can't send tcp/ip
> directly over a
> phone line. Its encoded into some other format (which I
> don't claim to
> know the details of - DMT/CAP/etc..), and there has to be some kind of
> error checking. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.
>
> -Chuck Hays
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2001-10-07 at 14:24, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Why is this so definately "malarky"? You don't think its
> > > possible that
> > > through a higher level of error checking you could
> introduce several
> > > (15-20) milliseconds of additional latency? I don't
> think its utterly
> > > ridiculous as a possibility.
> >
> > Error checking and correction built into the TCP/IP
> protocol, and is handled
> > at the receiving host. There is no error checking of
> packets by routers.
> >
> > StanTheMan
> > TheHardwareFreak
> > www.hardwarefreak.devastation.cc
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
