HANK@BARILVM.BITNET (Hank Nussbacher) (05/01/88)
Plz send updates to me directly, as I am not on the list.
The Pc/Ip Scorecard
revision 4: 05/01/88
---------------------
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.
|Revision 4: a) redefination of max FTP: this column will reflect max
| FTP rates from disk to disk. People who have
| provided max FTP rates based on NUL, should send me
| updated information. A disk can be defined as a real
| disk, ramdisk or any other sort of "fast" disk
| available on your system. In addition, "k" stands
| for Kbytes/per second and not kbits/per second.
| This column still stands for transfer to a PC and should
| not be measuring transfer from a PC.
| b) FTP has been redefined to be FTP client and not server.
| c) The vendor column should now include the version and
| release name of the system in question (in first table)
| d) "name server" has been redefined to be "domain name
| server" and not IEN116
| e) "net-BIOS" has been redefined to be be RFC1001/1002
| netBios
| f) Added 3com 3c503 and Micom NI5210 cards to list.
| g) "gateway" (in the 3rd table) refers to IP forwarding
| capability
This first table is called "Must Have".
Vendor TFTP POP ICMP SMTP VT- 3270 FTP ARP UDP max cost
100 Clnt FTP ($)
-------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Beame | Yes| No | Yes| No | | No | | Yes| Yes| | |
Cornell | No| No | Yes| No | No | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| | 25|site
CMU | Yes| No | Yes| No | No | No | No | Yes| Yes| | 0|
Excelan | No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| 88k| 250|cpu
FTP 2.02 | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes|114k| 400|cpu
FUSION | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| | 300|
IBM V1.1 | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| 90k| 200|cpu
KA9Q | No | No | Yes| Yes| No | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| | 0|
MIT | Yes| No | Yes| No | No | No | No | Yes| Yes| | 50|site
NCSA | No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| | 0|
Stanford 3.0 | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| | 100|site
SUN PC-NFS | No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| 51k| 395|cpu
UB | | | Yes| No | No | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| | 495|cpu
WIN/TCP 3.2 | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes|200k| 395|cpu
The "max FTP" column is for the fastest FTP to a Pc (*not* from)
seen by a user (in Kbytes/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 Inter UB WD 3Com UB NIC 3com MICOM
3C501 EXOS205 NI5010 2273A 8003 3C523 PS/2 3C503 NI5210
-----------+-----+--------+------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+
Beame | Yes | No | No | No | | | | |
Cornell | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No
CMU | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No
Excelan | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | |
FTP | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes
FUSION | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | |
IBM | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No
KA9Q | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | |
MIT | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | |
NCSA | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes
Stanford | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | | Yes |
Sun | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes
UB | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | |
WIN/TCP 3.2| Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No
This table is called the "Nice to Have" table. The functions
listed here are not mandatory but are useful in a Tcp/Ip
environment:
domn time fing whoi NFS gate srce Net- ping SLIP
Vendor name srvr way code BIOS
srvr 1001
-----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Beame | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | | | | | Yes| No | | |
Cornell | No| No| No| No | No | No | No | No | Yes| No | | |
CMU | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | No | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| | |
Excelan | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes| No | No | | |
FTP | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| No | No | Yes| Yes| | |
FUSION | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | | |
IBM | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| No | Yes| No | | |
KA9Q | No | No | No | No | No | Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| | |
MIT | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | | |
NCSA | Yes| No | No | No | No | Yes| Yes| | Yes| No | | |
Stanford | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | No | | Yes| No | | |
Sun | Yes| No | No | No | Yes| No | No | No | Yes| Yes| | |
UB | Yes| No | | | No | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| No | | |
Wollongong | No | No | No | No | No | Yes| No | No | Yes| No | | |
FTP Software is OEMed to BICC Data Networks, Fibronics, Proteon, cisco,
Spider Systems, MICOM-Interlan, Scope, Univation and Western Digital.ROMKEY@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (John Romkey) (05/10/88)
I had the impression that the "must have" chart was a list of things that people REALLY wanted in their TCP/IP implementations, and not associated with the required protocols listed in RFC's. - john -------
oconnor@SCCGATE.SCC.COM ("Michael J. O'Connor") (05/11/88)
I also viewed the scorecard as a list of user preferences and not a rehash of the "official" requirements. Mike
kzm@TWG.COM (Keith McCloghrie) (05/20/88)
Mike, > I also viewed the scorecard as a list of user preferences and not a rehash > of the "official" requirements. I wasn't trying to be difficult, and I wasn't suggesting that POP be deleted from the list, just moved to the Nice-to-Have category (which Hank sent me a note to say he was considering). It just seemed like users should be warned about the status of POP, in that it is not an official standard, like all the other "Must have" protocols (and even Finger and Whois) are. Also, as a point of information, the IETF has a working group which is preparing an RFC on the requirements for Host implementations of TCP/IP. It will be the Host equivalent of RFC-1009 (the gateway requirements spec.). One thing that has been suggested is that as well as all the text, it also have a checklist containing all the items of conformance within each protocol. James Van Bokkelen has been contributing as well as Dave Crocker and myself, so the PC vendors are well-represented. Keith.