Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!interlan!backman
From: backman@interlan.UUCP (Larry Backman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: RCTE
Message-ID: <506@interlan.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Oct-87 11:23:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: interlan.506
Posted: Thu Oct  1 11:23:05 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Oct-87 04:47:46 EDT
References: <870928095131.6.DCP@KOYAANISQATSI.S4CC.Symbolics.COM> <8709291511.AA18314@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: backman@interlan.UUCP (Larry Backman)
Distribution: world
Organization: MICOM-Interlan, Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Lines: 28

In article <8709291511.AA18314@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky) writes:
>Never having been at all fond of reinventing wheels, I hastened to
>FTP the SUPDUP RFC and print it out at my terminal.  When I got to
>"Due to the highly interactive characteristics of both the SUPDUP
>protocol and the ITS system [which was the original Server for which
>the protocol was developed], all transactions are strictly character
>at a time and all echoing is remote" I aborted the printing.  Am I


	[]

	Me too.  SUPDUP has been in the back of my mind for the past year
	as a viable TELNET alternative.  However, examination of the
	spec reveals that it too does remote host echoing.  The product
	that we provide, TELNET through a TCP gateway from a Novell LAN to the w
	orld has
	4 hops to go through before a typed character reappears on the
	screen.  Each keystroke on a PC workstation goes across the Novell
	subnet to the gateway,  from the gateway to the remote host, and
	thence back from where it came.  We do all sorts of tricks in the
	PC to limit subnet traffic, buffering et. al. but no matter what
	you do, the remote echo is a killer.

	I am looking for alternatives also.  Ideas? solutions?


					Larry Backman
					Micom - Interlan