Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!hpcea!wunder
From: wunder@hpcea.HP.COM (Walter Underwood)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: ethernet terminal servers
Message-ID: <470003@hpcea.HP.COM>
Date: Wed, 6-May-87 18:19:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpcea.470003
Posted: Wed May  6 18:19:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 9-May-87 02:39:35 EDT
References: <45800001@uicsrd>
Organization: HP Corporate Engineering - Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 24

> I think DEC has a product of this type called LAT (LAN Asynchronous
> Terminal?).  I would suspect that because protocol layers 3 and 4
> would not need to be implemented ...

You still have to do all the work that TCP does, because you can still
lose packets.  With multiple bridges and buffered repeaters, it is
possible to get duplicte or out-of-order packets.

So, you cannot get rid of the TCP overhead.  You can optimize it for
your exact application, particularly if you make the transport protocol
aware of block mode and VT-100 ESC sequences and all sorts of other
grot.

Recommended reading on the subject:

    RFC-872  TCP-ON-A-LAN  M. A. Padlipsky

                                 Abstract
          The sometimes-held position that the DoD Standard
     Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP)
     are inappropriate for use "on" a Local Area Network (LAN) is
     shown to be fallacious.

Walter Underwood