Chris Bartram wrote:
>
>  In <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > There has been traffic lately about switching to Telnet from NS/VT due
> > to firewall configuration issues.  Besides concerns about the stability
> > of Telnet, what are other advantages/disadvantages of NS/VT vs. Telnet?

Plus many 'default' firewall configs allow "anything" above port 1023.

> Some firewalls don't know how to "proxy" (or allow pass-thru) of
> non-standard services like NSVT (which operates on TCP port 1537 or 1570).

Or the opposite.  When you telnet or SMTP or FTP to a host, your machine
picks a random "high numbered" port for it's end of the connection and
these
are generally allowed, based on the target port ruleset.  Exactly where
your TCP stack starts it's "high-numbered" ports varies from one
implementation to another, the oldest being 1024 (ports below 1024
requiring special priviliges to access in the first place).

> NS/VT will *usually* be a little more efficient than telnet, but the
> newest telnet implementations make the difference small.

NS/VT adds another process per connection.  This can be good or bad
depending on your configuration.  But overall, I've been quite pleased
with the host-based telnet implementation on the 3000.

Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>