Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!hubcap
From: hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: LAT
Message-ID: <12578@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 11 Jan 91 19:37:23 GMT
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 25

Would anyone in this forum care to comment on these claims?

-Mike

*********** LAT/ TELNET comparison ***********

- LAT is optimized for terminal/host connectivity on a single LAN
        "For asynchronous traffic on local networks, LAT is the best
        available technology and won't easily be supplanted by OSI's
        VT or IP's TELNET [protocols]" (Donald G. Hirsh, DEC
        Professional, February 1990).

- LAT causes less of a burden on the CPU and the network 
        "In preliminary test using KI Research's KiNet, DR Labs found
        the DEC's LAT protocol imposed lower overhead on both the host
        CPU and the network than TELNET.  For example, with 45 active
        TELNET session on a Mips M/120-5 system, the CPU had zero
        percent idle time, meaning that it was overload, and only 4.4
        percent of the network bandwidth was utilized. With 64 active
        LAT sessions to the same machine, the CPU was still 50 percent
        idle, and only 2 percent of the network bandwidth was
        utilized. This difference is due in large part to the fact
        that LAT does not use the full DECnet stack, whereas TELNET
        uses the full TCP/IP stack." (Lee Schlesinger, Digitial
        Review, August 27, 1990)