Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!csus.edu!ucdavis!ucbvax!star.enet.dec.com!mann
From: mann@star.enet.dec.com (Bruce Mann ZK1-3/J35 DTN 381-1298)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: TELNET LAT comparison ...
Message-ID: <9101151656.AA04342@decpa.pa.dec.com>
Date: 15 Jan 91 17:03:32 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26


	There is a lot of misinformation about LAT.

	The reason LAT outperforms TELNET (or any other
protocol) under a workload where many connections exist
between the same two systems is the message rate. The  
"full protocol stack" issue is a red herring.

	For instance, with 128 connections active,
LAT may be sending about 20-30 packets/second while
other protocols send 100s of packets/second.

	This is because LAT attempts to put all the
different session data into a single physical datagram,
unlike other protocols. This results in LAT's peculiar
timer-based operation and other special policies.

	LAT has no provision for checksumming - it
relies on the underlying LAT 32-bit CRC. Since LAT
only operates across LANs, data integrity problems
introduced by ISO layers 3-7 reformatting packets
(routers/gateways) is not an issue for LAT. Bridges
normally forward packets without regenerating CRCs.

					Bruce Mann
					LAT inventor