Talk:Trivial File Transfer Protocol

message: 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?
SATISH KUMAR rawat says:That link says MSN uses the Trivial File Transfer Protocol over TCP.  Which is a bit unusual because RFC 1350 says it normally runs over UDP and can be implemented on top of other datagram protocols whereas TCP is a stream protocol.  Unlike TCP, datagram protocols preserve packet boundaries, and TFTP appears to make some use of that.  If it really is the same TFTP, Microsoft may have added a length field in front of each packet to restore the boundaries.  If you're curious, post a network capture and someone may take a look.  Such original research should not be added to the article, though.  85.23.32.64 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSN 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.88.221 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 January 2005
: I added an allusion to this in the article. Noel (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bigger files, too 

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes from RFC 783 to RFC 1350

message: 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.
- I used both pumpkin and whitehorn and I feel obliged to make a comment that I found whitehorn a complete product and I still use their last version whenever i have to do config on my old school network probes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.238.226 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comparisson to TCP 

message: In the "details" section the article talks about host A and host B. But the figures to the right talk about host A and server S. That's confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.211.100 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of a TFTP session 

message: This is WP:OR, I don't care, the reader can easily figure out if it's true or not, and it'll eventually have WP:RS to back it up.
TFTP has a serious limitation: it's based on UDP, and is therefore unreliable over long distances (ie. outside of a LAN).
With the advent of kexec, we're finally getting some bootloaders that pull boot images down via HTTP, which means they can boot from the internet, across oceans, not just over a local LAN.  Behold:
* boot.kernel.org (httpfs-based)
* NetbootCD (Tiny Core-based)
* netboot.me (Tiny Core based)
* OS Circular
--Underpants 01:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFTP booting is dead 

message: In my opinion this wiki article requires its layout to be re-assessed. The page requires the information to be re-organised and updated.
I will try to do so myself, when I have the time; it is likely to be in the near furture however I am unsure exactly when. Any help before hand would be greatly appreciated.
: If you have any objections to me doing so please say (by replying) before I begin; again I don't know when. Jaymie94 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Revised layout. Mostly moved things according to their generality, general stuff at the head of the article, detailed stuff further down, and merged repeated statements. Replaced the good v. bad approach to the discussion with an organization of the technical discussion referring to the perceived issues. Ozga (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise layout  

message: Here is a microsoft article that compare FTP and TFTP.But i don't know whether it is useful.If anybody think it's useful ,you can feel free to write/add the link to the wikipedia.Sorry for very poor/noob/kid english.Don't piss me plaese.
Differences Between FTP and TFTP
Humorright (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly an article nor does it provide any real insight into TFTP -- besides it's based entirely on how TFTP and FTP is implemented in Windows NT, which, as far as I know, died completely with Windows Vista (correct me if I'm wrong). Anything that is relevant to the general description of TFTP is already in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.223 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article from microsoft 

message: The original protocol has a file size limit of 32 MB, although this was extended when RFC 2347 introduced option negotiation, which was used in RFC 2348 to introduce block-size negotiation in 1998 (allowing a maximum of 4 GB and potentially higher). If the server and client support block number wraparound, file size is essentially unlimited.
contradicts
TFTP cannot download files larger than 1 Terabyte.
please clarify.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxquis (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: One of the disadvantages is listed as "TFTP allows big data packets which may burst and cause delay in transmission."  I can't tell if that is just a poorly worded issue about the use of UDP and maximum packet sizes or if it is just a joke: "Packets so large they risk bursting in transit..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.151.25 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Disadvantages