Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: LAT Message-ID: <1991Jan11.212214.15475@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <12578@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1991 21:22:14 GMT In article <12578@hubcap.clemson.edu> hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor) writes: >- LAT is optimized for terminal/host connectivity on a single LAN Ah, so one never needs to connect one's terminal to a host that is not on the same local network? Gee, DEC, thanks for telling me. I thought otherwise. :-) It is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of such claims when the LAT specs are (last I heard) still secret. My first reaction is "this sounds like marketing fluff". >- 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... This is *extremely* sensitive to implementation details. My gut reaction is that it says almost nothing about the protocols. > ...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... Now this *is* marketing fluff. Telnet uses the full TCP/IP "stack", all two levels of it: IP for data delivery, TCP for reliability, sequencing, and flow control. Unless the laws of nature have gotten repealed somehow, LAT needs all those functions too. I can think of no reason offhand why a well-tuned TCP/IP implementation -- more often spoken of than found, alas -- should incur any extra overhead compared to whatever LAT uses. For a guess, they're comparing a user-level Telnet server implementation against an in-kernel LAT server, and it is no surprise that the in-kernel approach is more efficient. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry