Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: LAT
Message-ID: <1991Jan13.022718.23274@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <12578@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1991Jan11.170417.1732@yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 02:27:18 GMT

In article <1991Jan11.170417.1732@yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca> henry@yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca writes:
>I can't comment from a technical point of view, but from a real-world
>user's point of view, LAT has one distinct advantage - it handles
>buffering in a non-annoying way.  Control-C's are have very little
>latency as compared to TELNET.

Be careful to distinguish between the protocol and the implementations.
As I understand it, there is no reason in the TELNET *protocol* why
interrupts should have any significant latency, although getting it right
in the *implementation* is subtle and many implementors ignore the issue.

>If you're considering buying a terminal server, I'd buy one with both..

I'd test the TELNET latency instead.
-- 
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry