Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:8021 comp.protocols.nfs:327
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!yunexus!sparkles!beame
From: beame@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Beame)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: How to get an urgent message to an arbitrary system
Keywords: rwall
Message-ID: <1989Aug13.020638.652@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Date: 13 Aug 89 02:06:38 GMT
References: <681@east.East.Sun.COM> <1989Aug10.170537.1823@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <693@east.East.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: beame@maccs.DCSS.McMaster.CA (Carl Beame)
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
Lines: 25

In article <693@east.East.Sun.COM> geoff@hinode.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:
>
>I presume you're not including the portmapper in this total? We don't
>run a portmapper in PC-NFS, since we don't normally run any RPC based servers
>on the PC. (After all, we don't want to undercut our workstation
>business :^) "rwall" uses a pmap_rmtcall to contact rpc.rwalld, but
>to be correct you have to handle both direct and indirect calls, don't
>you?

 We didn't implement the portmapper in total, we have a port 111 interrupt
routine which checks for pmap_rmtcall to rwalld. The 179 bytes refers to
all code (including portmapper check routine) which is resident and executed
above the UDP level.

>
>Also, are you doing the any duplicate filtering?
>
 No.
>
>I'm sure you know that none of the resident PC-NFS code is written in C...
>
  No I didn't know that.

-  Carl Beame
   Beame@McMaster.CA