Subject: Re: rdist vs. sup
To: Ted Lemon <>
From: Michael L. VanLoon -- <>
List: current-users
Date: 03/02/1995 20:43:52
>My only complaint about sup versus rdist is that sup doesn't appear to
>CRC the files that it transfers, so if the IP checksum fails, you've
>got a corrupt file and no way of knowing that it's corrupt.  I notice
>what I think are IP checksum failures (that is, an error isn't
>detected) on my slip link about every other week or so.

I thought TCP was designed to guarantee error-free delivery of a
packet.  Shouldn't TCP cause the packet to be resent if the IP
checksum is wrong?

Sup is a TCP, not UDP, is it not?

  Michael L. VanLoon                       
       --<  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x  >--
     NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4, PC532,
                           DEC pmax (MIPS R2k/3k), DEC/AXP (Alpha)
     NetBSD ports in progress: VAX and others...