home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!hayes!tnixon
- From: tnixon@hayes.com
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
- Subject: Re: LAPM vs MNP on good lines - which is best?
- Message-ID: <5870.2a8b9540@hayes.com>
- Date: 14 Aug 92 11:13:04 EDT
- References: <ZHmePB1w164w@mcgort.COM> <1992Aug12.195146.23733@news.uit.no>
- Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <1992Aug12.195146.23733@news.uit.no>,
- borgen@stud.cs.uit.no (Boerge Noest) writes:
-
- > Which of MNP4 and LAPM has the least overhead when used on good
- > connections?
-
- That depends on the LAPM implementation. MNP4 and LAPM both have
- the same number of bytes of overhead per frame, so the real question
- is which can send larger frames (since the large the frame, the
- lower the overhead per byte). MNP4 can send a maximum of 256, and
- that is also the default frame size. LAPM can send a maximum of
- 4096, but the default (and only mandatory max size) is 128. Many
- modems can be configured to request larger than 128 (Hayes modems,
- for example, can go up to 512 bytes per frame). So, it really
- depends on your modem and what it will accept as a maximum frame
- size.
-
- Also, I should mention that the argument above applies to
- unidirectional data transfer. If you're doing bidirectional data
- transfer, LAPM has the additional advantage of being able to do
- piggybacked acknowledgements, while MNP4 requires a separate
- acknowledgement frame.
-
- Anyway, there's no simple, single answer to your question.
-
- --
- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 401243420
- Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404
- P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon
- Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15
- USA | Internet tnixon@hayes.com
-