Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!cs.tamu.edu!willis
From: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: re: LAT vs telnet
Message-ID: <9105021611.AA22004@neuron>
Date: 2 May 91 16:11:24 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26


Andrew McRae (andrew@megadata.mega.oz.au) writes:
[summarized]
1. LAT has less overhead than TCP, and is more efficient for local terminal
  traffic.
2. LAT doesn't work through routers, but so what.
3. LAT is DEC proprietary, and is not really readily available.
4. Why doesn't someone do a lightweight termianl protocol?

In response, all I'd point out is that LAT-like protocols make building
general purpose wide area networks or any size internetwork a problem.
Somewhere, we have to figure out that a user wants a distant site *and* it's
for terminal traffic *and* it has to be handled different from most all the
other site to site traffic.  And when we build mixed protocol sites, we 
can't just route, but have to make allowances for LAT traffic.  So DEC
pushes FDDI bridges (instead of routers).

One can always make things simpler by restricting the areas your solution
covers.  But the real world generally provides you with more than toy
problems.

Cheers,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Willis F. Marti		Internet: willis@cs.tamu.edu
 Director, Computer Services Group, Dept of Computer Science, Texas A&M Univ.
 	---Not an official document of Texas A&M---