Don't forget AICS Research's "Advanced Telnet" protocol, which is somewhere
between telnet (each char echoed by host) and block mode (chars sent when
you press enter), I think.

Over sloooww internet connections it works astonishingly well.

However, it is in development, so may have to wait.

Regards

Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilles Schipper [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 January 2000 20:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NS/VT vs TELNET


There are 3 ways for a session to connect to the HP3000 via a network
connection:

1. hardware telnet 9via DTC telnet card or telnet access box).

I would think this method would be the most efficient, since most of the
character processng overhead is done by the hardware and frres up the host
cpu for more user-oriented processing tasks.

The main disadvantage is the restriction on the max. number of users per
card (20 or 40 or 80 - dpending upon which model dtc and/or telnet access
box).

Also, of course, you require HP Openview DTC manager software on a PC to
configure and manage hardware telnet - which raises a cost issue, as well
as an operator management issue.


2. host software, via NS/VT

Probably the second choice in terms of overall efficiency - since NS/VT
host processing is more efficient that telnet host processing (see choice
number 3).

From an operational management viewpoint, this option is a no-brainer,
since it requires only the initial configuration of the host network
configuration and it's plug and play after that.

The disadvantage is that you require a non-standard layer of software for
the client - available with various 3rd-party terminal emulator packages
such as WRQ Reflection for HP with NS/VT, and MS92 from Minisoft.

3. host software, via software telnet

Probably the least overall efficient, but the most standard and available
from a client perspective.

The care and feeding of a background job (jinetd) is the major operational
consideration. Nothing significant to worry about here, although tweaking
that job is important to ensure minimal glitches in its operation.

I should say here that I believe that software telnet is improving each new
iteration - although I still think it is still more problematic than ns/vt
or hardware telnet. Others more knowledgable in that area will surely
correct me if I'm wrong.




At 09:04 AM 2000-01-02 -0800, Paul H Christidis wrote:
>In recent weeks some of our 'out of state' users have been configuring
their
>Reflection 7.X to use VT-MGR instead of TELNET (We have 2 DTCs with telnet
>access cards).
>
>What are the pros and cons of each of the above protocols?  Are there any
points
>of concern from the system operation prospective?
>
>Regards
>Paul H. Christidis
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilles Schipper
GSA Inc.
HP3000 & HP9000 System Administration Specialists
300 John Street, Box 87651   Thornhill, ON Canada L3T 7R4
Voice: 905.889.3000     Fax: 905.889.3001
Internet:  [log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------