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