Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!jdd From: jdd@allegra.UUCP (John DeTreville) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.lan Subject: Re: NCC Message-ID: <2671@allegra.UUCP> Date: Sun, 5-Aug-84 17:21:23 EDT Article-I.D.: allegra.2671 Posted: Sun Aug 5 17:21:23 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Aug-84 01:14:08 EDT References: <419@sri-arpa.UUCP> <184@cbosgd.UUCP>, <3750@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 26 From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.lan Subject: Re: NCC Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 11:34:22 EDT If 3Com was smart, they'd give up on UNET! It's among the worst attempts at TCP I've seen. Great if you want to talk to other UNET sites, not so hot at talking to real internetters. The principal problem with UNET is that it was one of the earlier available implementations of TCP/IP. Such systems are typically debugged by seeing whether they can talk with other systems (if they can't, it may be their fault, or the other systems' fault, or both). When UNET first came out, there weren't an awful lot of other TCP/IP implementations around to test it against. As other implementations have come out, the process of testing them has uncovered various bugs in UNET, which do get fixed. The release of new implementations has also uncovered some unfortunate overflexibilities in the TCP/IP specification, which allows for two implementations, each of which conforms with the standard, to be unable to communicate. These problems are solved by arriving at a (weighted) consensus, and once again UNET has to be changed. Cheers, John DeTreville Bell Labs, Murray Hill