Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!MATHOM.CISCO.COM!BILLW
From: BILLW@MATHOM.CISCO.COM (William "Chops" Westfield)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: LAT vs telnet
Message-ID: <12682502583.11.BILLW@mathom.cisco.com>
Date: 3 May 91 21:47:25 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 20


    I read in UnixWorld about various arguments concerning the pros
    and cons of LAT as opposed to telnet, with the main argument for
    LAT being it is a LOCAL transport protocol designed to achieve
    less host load, less network load and overall a much better
    protocol for connecting terminals to a host on a local net.

You'll be able to find many people to argue about whether the supposed
advantages of LAT actually exist.  The only thing that is surely true is
that the common LAT host implementation (kernal resident in VMS) is much
more efficient than the common implementation of Telnet (process resident
in unix "telnetd"), which is not at all surprising.  The implementation
details in these cases FAR outweigh the nature of the protocols.  On
the other side of the connection, our experience is that terminal servers
tend to be limited by uart interrupt processing rather than by protocol
processing for either protocol.

Bill Westfield
cisco Systems.
-------