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