Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!m2c!seqp4!jdarcy From: jdarcy@seqp4.ORG (Jeff d'Arcy) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: LAT vs telnet Message-ID: <728@seqp4.UUCP> Date: 3 May 91 13:54:07 GMT References: <1991May2.012159.23962@megadata.mega.oz.au> Reply-To: jdarcy@sequoia.com (Jeff d'Arcy) Organization: Sequoia Systems, Marlboro MA Lines: 17 andrew@megadata.mega.oz.au (Andrew McRae): >My real question is: If the concept of LAT is good enough, and the >advantages great enough, why doesn't someone define a protocol that >does the same job, but is part of TCP/IP; in other words a local telnet >protocol. This question probably arises from a very common misconception that LAT is part of DECnet. In fact, the DECnet equivalent of telnet is CTERM; LAT is a direct Ethernet client which just happens to coexist with DECnet but can coexist with TCP/IP just as easily. In other words, LAT is *already* a sort of local telnet protocol as much as it can be without changing its architecture in ways that would negate its advantages (such as by making it run on top of IP or any other routing protocol). -- Jeff d'Arcy, Generic MTS, Sequoia Systems Inc. Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana