On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:11:58PM -0500, Brian wrote:
> 
> > I'm glad someone brought this up -- I was playing with my 678 over
> > the weekend, and had problems at 38400.  Google tells me that some
> > ISP's say use 38400, some 9600, some other things.  Google did not
> > tell me why this is.  Anybody here have insight into this?
> 
> I want an answer to this also.  All Cisco docs for my REAL Cisco tell me
> to use 38400, but it's never worked.  9600 *ALWAYS* works.  What
> gives?  It seems like the standard for equipment is 9600-8-N-1 and it's
> almost guaranteed to work, yet some hardware says to use 38400.
> 
A little poking around Google (comp.dcom.xdsl is my new fave NG) yields:

 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=speed+serial+9600&hl=en&meta=group%3Dcomp.dcom.xdsl

Uh-oh.

 ayaz:~# setserial /dev/ttyS0
 /dev/ttyS0, UART: 16450, Port: 0x03f8, IRQ: 4
 ayaz:~# 

Not to mention:

 http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP/nag/node57.html

So my problem is not the 678, but the guy driving it.  Which makes me
think it's time to ditch my faithful 25 MHz 486SX firewall.  :-(

Or maybe I'll just go to MPC and see if I can scare up an ISA serial
port card.  :-)

-- 
johntrammell at yahoo.com | 78BA 706C C5F9 9321 E7C4 933B D063 907B A88E 924B
Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List (TCLUG)
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota  http://www.mn-linux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20011023/63bbebaf/attachment.pgp