From: Ellen K. 

Thanks very much.

I just sent an email passing on both John's and your responses (no names or
email addresses).

On Thu, 12 May 2005 06:12:08 -0400, "Geo" 
wrote in message :

>"John Beckett" 
wrote in message
>news:4283203c.2639946{at}216.144.1.254...
>
>> So, the exact wording of your statement is not literally correct. However,
>> I do recall there were issues in the past where changing the binding order
>> made a significant performance difference, broadly for the reason you
>> outline.
>
>for example if you have a  local network segment and a remote (on the far
>side of a router) network segment, some of the protocols are not routable so
>if you are trying to talk to a remote machine those will flat out fail but
>the router may allow broadcasts to pass so they won't fall immediately or
>the computer may get confused and have to wait for a timeout of some sort
>before switching to another protocol.
>
>The order I always use is tcp/ip then IPX then Netbeui if all are installed.
>That's because tcp/ip works everywhere unless the remote machine doesn't
>have it so you fall back to IPX which is the next most common then Netbeui
>if that fails.
>
>Also I'm not sure all protocols are tried at the same time, I believe the
>first tried has to timeout before another is tried (going from hazy memory
>as it's been a long time for me as well).
>
>Geo.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5