Talk:Trivial File Transfer Protocol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who's ever heard of a 'dumb terminal' that boots using tftp? All dumb terminals I've seen are so dumb they're completely incapable of independent network trafic, and have all the 'software' they need in ((E)E)PROM. (But I won't edit the article (yet) as maybe the person who wrote it knows more than me.) /Popup 13:52, 2004 Feb 12 (UTC)
- It means diskless terminal, I think Morwen 13:55, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I changed it to thin client. (And added port number) /Popup 09:28, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] MSN
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;903056 says that msn uses TFTP, is this the same protocol as this, and does the current version of msn use the same protocol? If it does could this be added to the article?
[edit] bigger files, too
TFTP may have been originally intended for small file transfers, but when diskless booting for workstations became hot, very large files (many MBs) were being transferred. TFTP blocksize of 512 affected performance and so TFTP extensions in later RFCs allowed for larger blocksizes (via negotiation) which dramatically improved performance on networks that permitted large MTUs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.125.88.221 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 January 2005.
The article states a 32MB limit - I've personally transferred files bigger than this, so I think it's wrong? --Commking 06:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I changed that line, it applies only to the original protocol. Block-size negotiation extends it to a possible 4Gb in software that supports it (the RFC was from 1998).
TFTP uses a 2 byte block count (65000). Using a 512 block size results in about 32mb max. Using a larger block size increases the max size. (I think ???) Robneild 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Changes from RFC 783 to RFC 1350
The minor content differences between RFC-783 and RFC-1350 (mostly the SAS fix, along with a couple of typos) are available at Talk:Trivial File Transfer Protocol/783 1350 diff; reformatting at the RFC Editor makes it hard to compare the versions now available online directly. Noel (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] link
I've read in history the discussion about inclusion of "Whitehorn TFTP" and thought that I may propose that you put a link to PumpKIN TFTP instead (http://kin.klever.net/pumpkin/). I am not going to conceal that I'm the author of the said software. I am not going to put a link that will be shortly removed myself, either.
Now that whitehorn seems to have disappeared I think I can say it aloud that it was a rip off of PumpKIN source (PumpKIN is opensource), a bit of change in appearance and marketing effort. While I am at it, I feel obliged to say they did promise to give credit, but there was no releases since their promise.
PumpKIN TFTP is a very popular tftp server and when I explored search queries statistics (don't remember where, though) it seemed that it was on top of all "tftp server" coupled with a name requests. It is completely free and open source. So far we haven't managed to make any money with it except for some adsense revenue and 2 (two) paypal donations. We didn't plan to, though.
What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polyonymous (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comparisson to TCP
Where the article says:
- It uses UDP (port 69) as its transport protocol (unlike FTP which uses TCP port 21).
Some1 should edit that since FTP doesn't use 21 for transport but for control. I think. Alex.g 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
FTP is exclusively based on TCP and uses two ports, which ones depends on its mode. One is the command based port, and the other is used to transfer data such as file listings and files themselves. 88.109.139.190 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
