Columbia Kermit/kermit.zip/newsgroups/misc.20000824-20010305/[e-mail] _Tue Oct 31 18:10:12 2000.msg

Internet Message Format | 2020-01-01 | 2KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from watsun.cc.columbia.edu (watsun.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.39.2])
    by monire.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12134
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:10:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.30])
    by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA23971
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:10:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
    by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24396
    for [e-mail]; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:09:04 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu: news set sender to <news> using -f
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: Grant Cartledge <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cumulative Packet Error Limit in Kermit??
Organization: NEC Australia P/L
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:08:16 +1100
To: [e-mail]

We are using the Kermit protocol coded within the commercial package
"Procomm Plus". Our application is a satellite communications system
which uses mobile terminals in vehicles. Our current testing is
concentrating on data transmission in adverse propagation conditions
whereby the end-to-end link is interrupted by line-of-sight obstructions
(in this case, trees). The periods of shading obvioulsy cause lost and
errored packets. The file transfer is failing by exceeding a cumulative
error limit. This surprised us as prior testing (albeit in slightly less
shaded conditions) did not show this phenomenon. Is this error limit
inherent in the Kermit protocol or is it an artificial limit imposed by
the authors of Procomm Plus??

regards
Grant Cartledge