I would like to know from the folks on the net, the differences between UNIX 4.* BSD and

I sure hope somebody can give me some help on a problem I am having. I am attempting to use Sun's

-VAX TCP/IP. Who are the best vendors in this field? What kinds of experiences do you have with them? What kind and amount of system administration is required? Should I get a "smart

We have an ethernet LAN (4.2 TCP/IP) on which exist a number of transitory computers. These computers

-VAX TCP/IP. Who are the best vendors in this field? What kinds of experiences do you have with them? What kind and amount of system administration is required? Should I get a "smart

We have been experiencing a rather odd and intermittant problem with our Unix machines. It is not

I'm having a problem with our mail network, and I'm wondering if anyone out there has any

top of TCP: /* * Write a message packet. */ void wrmsg(fd, buf, size) int fd; char *buf; int size; { long nsize = htonl(size); /* * Could use writev here, for efficiency... */ if (write(

In <23407@gwen.cs.purdue.edu>, you write: >We have been experiencing a rather odd and

ARPA WITH TCP ; 2 Oct 86 15:04:42 EDT Received: from BRL-SEM.ARPA by SEM.BRL.ARPA id aa04868; 2 Oct 86 12:26 EDT Received: from BRL-AOS.ARPA by SEM.BRL.ARPA id aa04844; 2 Oct 86 12:00

After over a year's hiatus I suddenly find myself doing 4.2bsd kernel support. We've just

> and tcp/ip support that you do get. Worst than that! The Unix PC is SVR1.? version 3 with Berkleyism (thank goodness). Berkley doesn't have shared libraries that I know of.

the 4.2 TCP sets the TCP_PUSH bit at the end of each sys-write. This can have extreme effects on network performance. Note that readv() and writev() have a maximum vector length of 16

You seem to miss the point that the UDP checksum is an End-to-end protection measure, while the

communication protocols TCP, IP, ARP, ICMP TELNET. Most of the implementations use the CMOS/DMOS operating systems also produced by MITRE. The programs are written in "C"

in the tcp-ip part of the kernel (or the DEUNA driver) something is not spl-ed correctly. The same package communicates correctly with a VMS system, and also functions ok when the load

lineater +3 I have a somewhat complex request for info involving file transfer between hundreds of

The 4.3 BSD in_localaddr routine in sys/netinet/in.c is completely broken in its handling of subnets.

- makes TCP look like TP4 SSAP - ISO BCS session PSAP - ASN.1 encoding PEPY - ASN.1 yacc-like facility RoSAP - ECMA Remote Operations Services - Although the ISODE is not "supported

A friend of mine in SNU(Seoul National Univ., Korea) is grappling with 2.9bsd network. They received

I tried IX/370, first on our 3081 and later on our 3090/200. I will say that the IBM developers spoke

, the TCP module, and then do a "t_connect" to connect to a given Internet address and port number. At this point, the descriptor can be used to send data to, and receive data

I've just heard the amusing (?) rumor that AT&T is about to change the SVR2 validation

We have the MIT TCP/IP package for the IBM PC and are about (maybe) to buy a 3Com Etherlink board to

Configuration: VAX 750, Ultrix V1.0, 6MB memory, 2 RA-81s, TU-80, Old Interlan (link-level) Ethernet board, 3 DMF-32s. Problem: Ethernet doesn't

Is the tcp connection closing somehow? Is there a way to check if the connection is still open before going ahead with the write? Joe Ramey Texas Instruments, Computer Science Center

protocols like TCP that >*do* provide end-to-end flow control; that's usually not done in the >hardware, though. Both authorities are correct but there is some terminology

to use TCP/IP and something like an Annex box (TCP/IP terminal server). Of course, unless you have a good reason to do all this, this approach is absurd, it would be more cost-effective

-based TCP/IP >implementation doesn't seem to be becoming an AT&T product. Just some speculations: I am fairly certain the TCP/IP for 3Bs mentioned on this list is the

In article <976@decuac.DEC.COM>, avolio@decuac.UUCP writes: > > Look, I don't want to