[bit.listserv.ibmtcp-l] KNET vs FAL

PETEHIC@UOTTAWA.BITNET (Pete Hickey) (01/13/90)

Hi,

Sorry for what is a basic question, but I'm new with TCP in the IBM
world.

I'm looking at both FAL and KNET.  From the software side of things, how
similar are these two products.  Can an application that talks to one
of their TCP/IP virtual machines talk to the other (I.E is the interface
the same).  Can the new BITNET II run with KNET?

Thanks
                Pete

=======================================================================
Pete Hickey                     | Convention says that something funny
University of Ottawa            | goes here.  Its blank because I have
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA         | funny to say.
(613) 564-7646                  |_____________________________________
    petehic@uotacdvm.uottawa.CA      PETEHIC@UOTTAWA.BITNET

SMITH@GECRDVM1.BITNET (Don Smith) (01/13/90)

On Fri, 12 Jan 90 14:44:21 EST Pete Hickey said:
>Hi,
>
>Sorry for what is a basic question, but I'm new with TCP in the IBM
>world.
>
>I'm looking at both FAL and KNET.  From the software side of things, how
>similar are these two products.  Can an application that talks to one
>of their TCP/IP virtual machines talk to the other (I.E is the interface
>the same).  Can the new BITNET II run with KNET?
>
>Thanks
>                Pete
          I would refer you to the index of this list.. We started with
the IBM TCP/IP IUP from Wisconson Univ...then replaced it with KNET/K200
then added IBM -VM-TCP/IP with the BTI, then added IBM-TCP/IP with
the SNALINK...IBM seems to be a SERIOUS player in TCP/IP..
 Currently we have VM-KNET,,IBM-VM FAL,,,IBM-MVS-TCP/IP,,,we will be
dropping one of the VM TCP/IP products...and we will be keeping the
TCP/IP over SNA capability.....
***********************************************************************

Don Smith
Senior Software Engineer--Communication Systems
General Electric Company
CIT/Corporate Research and Development Processing

              ______    BITNET:    SMITH@GECRDVM1
             /      |   INTERNET:  SMITH%GECRDVM1@crd.ge.com
            |       |   *
  _________/        |   GEMS:      GECRDVM1(SMITH)
  >              0  |   DIALCOMM   8-235-1946
 /                  |   AT&TNET:   1-(518)-385-1946
|______________     |   SNEAKERNET:General Electric Company
               `_   |              Corporate Information Technology
                 `__|              2500 Cambridge Road
                                   2nd Floor East Wing
                                   Schenectady New York, 12345
                         FAX:      1-518-385-0654

LVARIAN@PUCC.BITNET (Lee C. Varian) (01/14/90)

On Fri, 12 Jan 90 14:44:21 EST Pete Hickey said:
>I'm looking at both FAL and KNET.  From the software side of things, how
>similar are these two products.  Can an application that talks to one
>of their TCP/IP virtual machines talk to the other (I.E is the interface
>the same).  Can the new BITNET II run with KNET?

Pete,  We began our VM use of the TCP/IP protocols just five years ago
this month, using two Spartacus K200 Ethernet controllers and the KNET
software.  We now have a total of four Ethernet controllers for IBM
systems:  the original two Spartacus K200's plus two newer (and faster)
BTI ELC's.  We began experimenting with the Wisconsin WISCNET TCP/IP
code when it became available to universities and converted over
entirely to the use of the IBM TCP/IP for VM (FAL) product when it
replaced WISCNET.  We had come to the conclusion then (mid 1987) that
the KNET software was going to continue to operate in catch-up mode,
always a little (or a lot) behind FAL in function, reliability, and
adherence to the evolving Internet standards.  We have not regretted
that decision.

We are now happily running the FAL code on our four non-IBM Ethernet
controllers.  (Our decision to buy those controllers for their much
better price and performance than the original IBM DACU and newer 8232
controllers is another one we have not regretted, in spite of the fact
that we have to run non-IBM drivers for them in FAL.)

We developed the VMNET (BITNET II for VM) program.  The field tests
of that program were done with some sites running FAL, WISCNET, and
KNET (and all interoperating satisfactorily).  Our distributed and
supported version of VMNET, however, supports only FAL.
  Lee Varian
  Princeton University

BRUCE@UMDD.BITNET (Bruce Crabill) (01/14/90)

I'd go with FAL, if I was you.  There are some rumors that the KNET people
may be starting to do some work on their product again, but it has been
a long time since they have done much with it.  Applications are not
directly portable between each.  I think Princeton's VMNET originally
supported KNET, but I think they have issued a statement that they would
only be supporting FAL.  Perhaps KNET can turn around and become a
reasonable product, but I think they have some work cut out from them.
Disclaimer:  I have never used KNET, nor am I positive about their current
product state, however I have seen lots of people dropping KNET and
picking up FAL and can't say I've ever seen the reverse to be true.

                                       Bruce