From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren <gvb.uboot@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 21:26:36 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] multicast tftp: RFC2090
In-Reply-To: <464DDCE6.6060701@cray.com>
References: <f0l75r$jem$1@sea.gmane.org>	<1177432072.3904.129.camel@saruman.qstreams.net>	<f0lbip$bal$1@sea.gmane.org>	<f17md0$r6p$1@sea.gmane.org>	<2acbd3e40705010916v4d9ae9e3pa6565b8078f3059e@mail.gmail.com>	<46376D9D.9050104@cray.com>	<2acbd3e40705011200r373a062djd20ce7ac6b4339ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<464DDCE6.6060701@cray.com>
Message-ID: <464E524C.7040706@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

David Updegraff wrote:
> Ok; here my mulicast TFTP patch.  Have had the opportunity to test with
> both the RTL8139 and TSEC ethernet drivers, with up to a dozen clients
> concurrent.
> 
> In a way I'm tempted to simply remove the #if CONFIG_RFC7090 clutter as
> it is benign if you happen to be talking to a non-multicast tftp server;
> and would make things rather more readable.  But too timid...
> 
> -dbu.

Hi Dave,

Interesting, not as much change needed as I would have guessed.

Now I'm dying of curiosity... what is your impression of the usefulness 
of RFC7090?  It always struck me as a lab curiosity: in fairly 
artificial cases where a bunch of CPU boards are powered up 
simultaneously...
* a room full of machines with a master breaker
* a rack of CPUs
it would be a big win, but that is a fairly unusual setup in the areas I 
hang out in.

On the other hand, we have a customer that currently has up to 4 units 
in a rack, and in the future possibly more units in a rack, that could 
possibly benefit from RFC2090.

Best regards,
gvb