km@EMORY.ARPA.UUCP (02/10/87)
Our Broadband vendor (Applitek) has agreed to add Telnet (and tcp/ip) to their terminal NIU product. The idea is that terminals connected to an NIU could initiate a telnet session which would then be bridged to ethernet via their bband/ethernet bridge product. I suppose the ip packets would be encapsulated in their proprietary Unilan packets, and stripped out at the bridge. On the surface it should give the appearance of one of the ethertip boxes (like Annex or Cisco). Anyway, we would like to give the vendor a wish list. I would appreciate any suggestions of features we should emphasize, and pitfalls we should avoid. One specific point for comment is the advisability of telnet instead of rlogin. Can a well implemented telnet work as well as rlogin? Is the rlogin protocol documented, or is the protocol just what the code does? I have seen some reference to adding facilities to the NIU to offload the host (hooks to editors, cooked mode done in the niu, etc..). Are any of these really big wins? The job of patching and maintaining the host software to support this (let alone convince the vendor to do the NIU side) seems to be only worth doing if the improvement is great.
DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM.UUCP (02/10/87)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 00:50:20 EST
From: Ken Mandelberg <km@EMORY.ARPA>
One specific point for comment is the advisability of telnet instead of
rlogin. Can a well implemented telnet work as well as rlogin? Is the
rlogin protocol documented, or is the protocol just what the code
does?
Yearly TELNET flame: TELNET is a piece of junk designed for ASR33s and
later tried to get improved as terminals entered a more modern age. Use
SUPDUP (RFC 734). If you also want to do graphics, see the SUPDUP
graphics protocol (RFC 746).