Subject: Re: rdist vs. sup
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@vix.com>
From: Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com <michaelv@HeadCandy.com>
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 michaelv@HeadCandy.com
--< 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...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------