BG> (and hundreds of V.32bis callers) who connect with no problems whatsoever,

RS> Yeah, yeah, heard this line before Bill. YOU claimed
RS> that the handshaking problem you saw when calling a
RS> Spirit had never ever been seen with anything but a Spirit.

BG> Which was quite true.  But at V.32bis speeds only, not V.34.

True as far as it went, but not adequate evidence to blame the Spirit.

RS> Now its seen when you call a Netcon M34F too.

BG> Not at V.32bis though Rod, only V.34.  Spot the difference yet?

You proclaimed that the handshaking failure ONLY you were seeing at a
significant rate when calling the Spirit were certainly due to the Spirit.
Pity you got MUCH WORSE handshaking failures when an M34F replaced the
Spirit. And a Viper shows the same problem when used instead of an M34F.

Your proclamation that it must be dud Spirit code imploded.

BG> the evidence would clearly suggest that the problem lies
BG> in the old V.32bis Supra's implementation of that protocol.

RS> Soorree, you dont have the evidence to substantiate that,

BG> And you have no evidence to suggest otherwise.  Snap!

*I* wasnt making wild claims about where the problem lay Bill,
because *I* didnt think there was adequate evidence to do so.

BG> the evidence would clearly suggest that the problem lies
BG> in the old V.32bis Supra's implementation of that protocol.

RS> Soorree, you dont have the evidence to substantiate that, PARTICULARLY
RS> when it never has any problem calling Sportsters and doesnt when the
RS> V32terbo is disabled in the Courier too. When we KNOW that V32terbo
RS> is a kludge, its hardly surprising we see some warts with the wide
RS> variety of V32bis modems out there in the field when its introduced.

BG> So?

So your 'the evidence would clearly suggest', which you
carefully edited out, and I have put back, has imploded.

'the evidence' actually does nothing of the sort.

BG> I'm not suggesting that the Courier isn't somehow fooling the Supra
BG> into thinking it's a V.32ter connect, only that NOBODY else has so
BG> far reported anything even remotely similar to your Supra's problem.

Pity that proves SFA about anything much at all when most people cant see
if retrains are being mindlessly demanded within a second of a perfect 14400
connect every time, WHEN it makes no sense whatever to be be retraining at
all on a V32bis connect, AND it MUST be the Courier demanding it.

And we KNOW that V32terbo is a rather crude kludge on V32bis and
we KNOW that its also bitten other V32bis modems already in the
field like has been seen with Maestro V32bis modems calling Thunders.

'the evidence' that its a Supra problem has imploded.

RS> Basically, V32terbo is very kludgy hack to V32bis, just fiddling with
RS> the constellation pattern, and not properly integrated into V32bis at
RS> the level of the session negotiation. Its hardly very surprising that
RS> that approach can bite with hordes of V32bis modems already in the field.

BG> But it doesn't.

RS> I said it CAN bite, it clearly can Bill.

BG> It apparently only bites with YOUR old Supra modem.

RS> Crap, Maestros have problem calling Thunders too.

BG> Try "one maestro" (singular).  That was Dieter's, wasn't it?

Soorree, you cant fake it away like that, and NO it wasnt Dieters.

We KNOW V32terbo is a crude kludge, its not surprising it can
bite. Thats WHY the ITU didnt go that route and did a proper
robust design with V34 instead. Which DOESNT bite the Supra.

RS> Thats why Paul disabled V32terbo on his Thunder. In fact its quite
RS> trivial to do a workaround when calling a Thunder with a Supra, BUT thats
RS> not very useful at all with a BBS modem when you have no way of notifying
RS> new callers in advance what they need to do to get an initial connect.

Clearly if it was just another of his regular callers he could
just have done a workaround himself too like I could have done.

BG> Can't you grasp that simple fact ?  The
BG> world has moved on over the past 5 years.

RS> Yeah, we even saw the higher speed protocols done properly with V34
RS> Bill. Which the Supra and Maestro V32bis modems dont have any problem
RS> calling Bill. Coz its a proper robust protocol design and not a kludge
RS> Bill. As can clearly be seen when calling a Sporter V34 Bill. Funny that.

RS> Its also interesting that the Supra has NO problem whatever
RS> with the rather less kludgy approaches like VFC and V34. Which
RS> both happen to have the session negotiation stuff done properly.

BG> No V.8 on originate, no V.34.

Yes, like I said, a decent robust design which DOESNT bite.

BG> The modems then perform a standard V.32bis negotiation,
BG> as expected. Nothing surprising about that at all.

Still doing it right and not trying to kludge it like
V32terbo does. AND IT DOESNT BITE WHEN DONE PROPERLY.

RS> Kludges can bite. Thats no news whatever.

BG> As you wish.  They sure haven't bitten me though.

RS> Hardly very surprising that USR ensured that there was no visible
RS> glitch when the V32terbo capable Couriers were called by Sportsters Bill.

BG> Nor any other DOCUMENTED V.32ter retrain
BG> problems with anything other than YOUR Supra,

Its no news that kludges can bite selectively Bill.

Thats an essential difference between a kludge and a robust design
like V34, the whole POINT of the robust design is to avoid the bites.

BG> and until such time as you can provide evidence to the contrary,
BG> you'll forgive me if I continue to attribute the blame to your Supra.

You can do whatever you like Bill. Pity it changes absolutely nothing at all.
@EOT:

---