Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!voder!pyramid!lstowell
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: LAT vs telnet
Message-ID: <154592@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 6 May 91 23:52:44 GMT
Sender: daemon@pyramid.pyramid.com
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 23

>Andrew McRae (andrew@megadata.mega.oz.au) writes:
>[summarized]
>1. LAT has less overhead than TCP, and is more efficient for local terminal
>  traffic.

      Highly dependent on the implementation of IP.  

>2. LAT doesn't work through routers, but so what.
      
      This is a MODERN real-world protocol?  Ever think about
      the poor guy paying the bills for the high speed links
      that a bridge requires compared to the savings available
      when routing at a higher layer?  

      If you are rich enough to afford T-3 links, lets talk
      about the response time delays.  Or perhaps
      transcontinental access, satellite circuits, etc. are not
      a part of modern networks?

>3. LAT is DEC proprietary, and is not really readily available.
      
      Nothing wrong with a proprietary protocol...as long as it
      is well documented and works in a REAL network...