Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!decwrl!ucbvax!VM1.MCGILL.CA!ROBERT From: ROBERT@VM1.MCGILL.CA (Robert Craig) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: IBM's FAL and poor performance Message-ID: <9008261352.AA24167@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 26 Aug 90 11:41:20 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 28 Mr. Simpson, if you did *that* much work, it would seem to be in order to post a comparison of vendor implementations, noting exactly where they fail in compliance to the host requirements and in robustness, performance, and other areas. That would be constructive. Your posting is inflammatory, filled with unsubstantiated innuendo, and more typical of a rumour-monger than of someone interested in learning and in helping others. If the tone of your original note to the supporters of TCP/IP in IBM containing the results of your testing was in the same vein, I don't wonder that you received no response from them (as I intuit from the bitterness in your note). For the record, we run FAL 1.2.1 on a 4381 with a BTI ELC. We began with an 8232 and performance *was* abysmal. It is much better now... Note that IBM has replaced the 8232 with an improved product (3172? I don't recall the model number off-hand). Robert Craig domain: robert@vm1.mcgill.ca Senior Network Analyst bitnet: robert@mcgill1 McGill University Computing Centre Tel: (514) 398-3710 805 Sherbrooke St. W. FAX: (514) 398-6876 Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6 CORISQ: (514) 398-RISQ