@make[report]
@majorheading[EMLAN]
@flushleft[7.1 Comparisons with Existing EMAS Front Ends]
The differences noted earlier between the behaviour of EMAS X.25 FEPs and
EMLAN have caused a number of problems with, for example, programs like
screen editors. This could have been sorted but would have either required a 
number of changes in EMAS or completely repackaging the EMLAN output to
completely emulate an X.25 FEP.

Apart from the above, which has only effected a very small number of users,
the FEP has performed well and is regularly used by a number of users.  The
performance figures in the paper indicate a maximum throughput of about
6,000 character/sec which is very similar to the existimg X.25 FEPs.
@flushleft[7.2 Pros and Cons]
It does not appear that using a LAN for terminal access to EMAS provides any
benefits to users X.25 FEP.  The main reason for this is that 
it is very difficult to use large packets, especially with the current OSLUs,
and when the traffic is predominantly small packets, the extra
speed of a LAN over X.25 is not utilised.

It is unfortunate that there was not time to implement FTP as on X.25 the
packet size used is considerably larger than packets for interactive users
(or size 120 as against 50) and there should have been an immediate benefit.
If larger packet sizes (say 1 Kbyte) had been used then there should be a
considerable performance increase when using a LAN as against X.25.