Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!rogue.llnl.gov!oberman
From: oberman@rogue.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: LAT
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.150912.1@rogue.llnl.gov>
Date: 11 Jan 91 22:09:12 GMT
References: <12578@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Lines: 35
Nntp-Posting-Host: rogue.llnl.gov

In article <12578@hubcap.clemson.edu>, hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor) writes:
> Would anyone in this forum care to comment on these claims?
> 
> -Mike
> 
> *********** LAT/ TELNET comparison ***********
[Comments on superiority of LAT to Telnet and VT deleted.]

These comments are certainly correct if taken in the correct context.

1. LAT operates only on a LAN. It can't be routed and depends on the broadcast
nature of LANs. While bridges don't effect LAT, routers, even if between LANs
will break it.

2. Normal caveats on the optimization of any specific implementation apply.
While it would be difficult, I can imagine a very bad implementation of LAT
running with more overhead than a good Telnet.

3. LAT depends on multicasts for servers to learn of available services. This
generates 1 packet per host per minute background on a LAN. It is not
significant except on VERY large LANs. And the multicasts are not, of course,
blocked by bridges. We have about 1000 LAT hosts on our LAN and the multicast
level is not a problem, but it sure is obvious on an analyzer.

4. LAT is proprietary and licensed by DEC. If you use it, DEC want's their cut.
Ki Research is paying DEC for every license they ship. Telnet is available from
almost everyone.

					R. Kevin Oberman
					Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
					Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov
   					(415) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.