Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!aurora!labrea!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!TAUNIVM.BITNET!HANK From: HANK@TAUNIVM.BITNET (Hank Nussbacher) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Pc/Ip scorecard Message-ID: <8802220249.aa24157@Louie.UDEL.EDU> Date: 22 Feb 88 08:53:57 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 105 X-Unparsable-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 88 09:43:44 IST After the initial round of excellent comments and suggestion, I have made some changes to the tables. Please keep sending me your information. Hank The Pc/Ip Scorecard revision 1: 02/22/88 --------------------- We are the process of trying to decide which Pc/Ip implementation would be the best. After asking around the overwhelming reply I have received has been, "If you ever find a comparison study, I would love to see it too". That is why I have decided to create the Pc/Ip Scorecard. This scorecard will be like a PC Magazine analysis of of hard disks or printers. But I need help in filling in the boxes. So, here is what the scorecard looks like. Please send me your replies and I will integrate all answers and comments and publish the finalized scorecard in the weeks to come. All Pc/Ip implementations support IP, TCP, FTP and Telnet. The question then is to divide other IP protocols into categories of "must have" to "nice to have but not necessary". This first table is called "Must Have". Vendor TFTP POP ICMP SMTP SLIP 3270 ping ARP UDP max cost FTP ($) -----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ Beame | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | | | Bellcore | | | | | | | | | | | | BICC ISOLAN| Yes| | | | | | Yes| Yes| Yes| | | CMC | | | | | | | | | | | | CMU | | | | | | | | | | | | Cornell | | | | | | | | | | | | Excelan | | | Yes| | | | | Yes| Yes| | | Fibronics | | | | | | | | | | | | FTP | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| | | | | FUSION | | | | | | | | | | | | KA9Q | No | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | Yes| Yes| | 0 | MIT | | | | | | | | | | | | NCSA | | | | | | | | | | | | Stanford | | Yes| | | | | Yes| | | | | SUN | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| | 300| UB | | | Yes| | | | | Yes| Yes| | | Wollongong | Yes| | | | | | | | | | | The "max FTP" column is for the fastest FTP to a Pc (*not* from) seen by a user (in Kb/sec). It makes no difference in this table which machine was at the other end (obviously the faster the machine at the other end - the better). The following table lists the most popular Ethernet cards available and whether the Pc/Ip implementation works with the stated card. Vendor 3com Excelan Interlan UB 3C501 EXOS205 NI5010 2273A -----------+-------+--------+--------+-------+ Beame | Yes | No | No | No | Bellcore | | | | | BICC ISOLAN| No | No | No | No | CMC | | | | | CMU | | | | | Cornell | | | | | Excelan | | | | | Fibronics | | | | | FTP | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | FUSION | | | | | KA9Q | Yes | No | No | No | MIT | | | | | NCSA | | | | | Stanford | Yes | No | No | No | Sun | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | UB | | | | | Wollongong | Yes | | | | This table is called the "Nice to Have" table. The functions listed here are not mandatory but are useful in a Tcp/Ip environment: Vendor name time fing whoi NFS gate srce srvr way code -----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ Beame | No | No | No | No | | | | Bellcore | | | | | | | | BICC ISOLAN| | | | | | | | CMC | | | | | | | | CMU | | | | | | | | Cornell | | | | | | | | Excelan | | | | | | | | Fibronics | | | | | | | | FTP | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| | | | FUSION | | | | | | | | KA9Q | | | | | | | | MIT | | | | | | | | NCSA | | | | | | | | Stanford | | | Yes| Yes| | | | Sun | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| | | UB | | | | | | | | Wollongong | | | | | | | | If you feel there are vendors that have been left out or columns that need to be added please let me know.