Re: SLIP and Cu-SeeMe cont'd

Michael Mraz (
Thu, 4 Aug 1994 14:51:57 -0400

On Thu, 4 Aug 1994, Paul Flores wrote:
> CSLIP is ok but PPP is better, both use VJ Compression on the TCP
> headers, but PPP has more 'slots' to work with than CSLIP. Also seems
> to be alot more bullet proof from noise, etc in my experience.
> Paul Flores

PPP is better for throughput of data, but actual packet route times
aren't any faster. Pinging a machine w/ a 14.4k connection and either
PPP or SLIP are both going to return about 300 to 350 ms roundtrip times,
this being local and pinging directly to the posrtmaster hooked up to
their localhost. So small packet update speeds aren't any faster with
either protocal. If you're FTP'ing a huge file PPP will be faster, and
if you have a noisey line, as Paul indicated, PPP is more forgiving by
not losing as many packets.

Could the Cornell people tell us which is more important? (Per packet
delays or throughput?) If it's just the delays I would think a higher
speed modem (ie 28.8k) would help alleviate this. If it's pure
throughput a faster modem would help as would using PPP.

-Rusty the MacPPP user who can believe he's justifying the use of SLIP