4 ms·
The reason AppleTalk was chatty was to make discovery easier. Unlike the corporate solutions, AT was peer-to-peer. Ut who are your peers? Uh, well, hmm. That
by mannyv 3y ago
The reason AppleTalk was chatty was to make discovery easier. Unlike the corporate solutions, AT was peer-to-peer. Ut who are your peers? Uh, well, hmm.
That was also when networking was new, and chatty on thinnet meant lower bandwidth.
To be honest, i doubt the chatty protocols really impacted anything...except that "network administrators" didn't like the idea of packets ie: they wanted a clean wire. This might have been due to the phone company origins of networking people.
Oh, and maybe the chattiness fired up those uucp links?
The world now is totally different. Even on my home network there's tons of crosstalk.
- duskwuff 3y ago> To be honest, i doubt the chatty protocols really impacted anything... The "chattiness" of AppleTalk was a significant issue when it was running over a shared 115.2 kBaud serial line (LocalTalk).
- mistrial9 3y agono, the objection was from network administrators of very large networks aka the Internet. At that time, TCP/IP itself was also failing to scale, so I imagine there was a lot of blame in every direction. "Heroic" efforts at cleaning up different aspects of TCP/IP and then DNS are the only reason we have a world network now. chattyness on local networks was not awful, and you can read here how UCLA and others managed fairly large networks after Appletalk 2.0x zones were implemented.
- mannyv 3y agoWell, people needed to filter out AppleTalk on the WAN side. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people didn't - and those T1s were expensive.
- mannyv 3y agoI remember those days, and really, slow file transfer > no file transfer. OTOH I was on thinnet at the time. And who really had 115kbps at the time? That'a dual ISDN, which was used by pretty much nobody. It's not like IPX would have been better over that link.
- duskwuff 3y ago> And who really had 115kbps at the time? LocalTalk LANs.