Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #25590
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: UDP Terminal Protocol |
| Date | 2016-12-15 21:49 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o2vo4u$1ps$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <7phv4cd0dickoubm7k7rud6or7vtnft8rb@4ax.com> <o2p3bs$7fc$1@reader1.panix.com> <qs535ctbk361kav29rjd236dat22mo199e@4ax.com> |
Robert Wessel wrote: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:16:12 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards > <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: <snip> > > I've simply never implemented anything with UDP that didn't take error > handling into account - is the common practice just to assume that you > will not lose/reorder/duplicate/mangle any packing so long as you're > on a local segment? Again, TFTP addresses those issues, at least as > they apply to its requirements. > > If you are using UDP on a local segment, you're reasonably safe assuming things are in order and not fragmented unless you try to push the envelope with large PDUs. Over a router of unknown configuration? Not so much. >>> OTOH, despite looking, I just don't see any standards for doing that >>> sort of thing. Am I just missing it? Is there a defacto standard >>> even if there's no RFC? >> >> If you want something reliable that works over WANs, use TCP: it's the >> only way you're going to dependably make anything work through a >> firewall. > > > Sure, no disagreement there. And no, operation over WANs is not a > prime consideration, although it certainly wouldn't hurt if it could, > even if the user had to deal with firewall issues, or set up a relay > server of some sort. But the scope would be within a data-center, or > perhaps campus (assuming at least real IP address assignment - without > that, local LAN). Remember the idea here is to replace a serial > console port. > Serial ports don't change the order of arrival or fragment :) > >> If you're going to assume local Ethernet, you can just use UDP. -- Les Cargill
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-13 04:23 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-12-13 17:10 +0200
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 13:33 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-13 15:16 +0000
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-12-13 18:51 +0200
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-13 21:13 +0000
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-12-14 09:05 +1100
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-12-13 13:23 -0800
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 13:28 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-14 15:29 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 00:34 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-15 01:10 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-12-15 21:52 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-15 22:00 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-14 15:22 -0800
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 00:00 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-12-15 01:49 +0000
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 00:17 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-15 02:06 +0000
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-14 21:09 -0800
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-15 17:38 +0000
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 23:58 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-12-15 21:49 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-12-24 16:10 +0100
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-24 18:53 +0000
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-25 13:45 +0000
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-25 11:44 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-13 12:53 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 14:03 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-14 15:09 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 00:50 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-15 11:01 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2017-01-15 16:08 +0100
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-12-15 15:08 +0200
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol wzab01@gmail.com - 2016-12-14 13:16 -0800
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-12-15 12:56 +0200
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-15 11:06 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 16:34 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-12-27 07:45 +0200
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-26 23:00 -0700
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 18:48 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-12-15 21:42 -0600
Re: UDP Terminal Protocol Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 17:21 -0600
csiph-web