gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) (04/20/91)
In article <7227.280E427C@zswamp.uucp> root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > >I was under the impression that the latest Telebit 2500 could do spoofing >in V.32 mode, but I could be wrong. <grin> Still, you're right: it probably >wouldn't be compatible. > Yes, the T2500 with version 6 or newer firmware can do protocol spoofing over a V/32/MNP connection to another T2500, T1500, or T1600 modem. > >Anyone ever tried spoofing in a Telebit 1600 - Microcom QX/V.32 connection? > Telebit negotiates and performs protocol spoofing through a licensed extension to the MNP protocol. Microcom likely does it in a similar fashion. It's doubtful that the two could talk to each other. -- .------------------------------------------------------------------------. | Greg Andrews | UUCP: {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!gandrews | | | Internet: gandrews@netcom.COM | `------------------------------------------------------------------------'
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (04/22/91)
In a letter to All, Greg Andrews (gandrews@netcom.COM ) wrote: >Telebit negotiates and performs protocol spoofing through a >licensed extension >to the MNP protocol. Microcom likely does it in a similar >fashion. Jeez, how many non-standard extensions are there to MNP? I believe that USR's HST protocol is also an extension to MNP (to control the reversal of the primary carrier). -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.uucp | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553 The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. -- me
gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) (04/24/91)
In article <7240.2813BF77@zswamp.uucp> root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > > Jeez, how many non-standard extensions are there to MNP? I believe that >USR's HST protocol is also an extension to MNP (to control the reversal of >the primary carrier). > There are probably more than you think. The registered ones won't cause interference with each other because they don't have collisions with the other registered codes. What about the unregistered ones? Well... ;-) (Who knows what evil lurks in the packets of MNP? The Shadow knows! <sinister laugh>) -- .------------------------------------------------------------------------. | Greg Andrews | UUCP: {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!gandrews | | | Internet: gandrews@netcom.COM | `------------------------------------------------------------------------'