Talk:Trivial File Transfer Protocol

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

MSN[edit]

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)[reply]

bigger files, too[edit]

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)[reply]

The article states a 32MB limit - I've personally transferred files bigger than this, so I think it's wrong? --Commking 06:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changes from RFC 783 to RFC 1350[edit]

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)[reply]

link[edit]

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)[reply]

What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polyonymous (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

- seems nobody thinks or nobody cares, buddie. :-) either this or nobody bothers to use his brain/keyboard to reply or just TFTP is _passe_ nowadays... Vaxquis (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisson to TCP[edit]

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)[reply]

FTP is exclusively based on TCP and uses two ports, which ones depends on its mode. One is the command based port, and the other is used to transfer data such as file listings and files themselves. 88.109.139.190 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FTP does indeed use two ports, commonly 21 for control and 20 for data. corrected the article and added the well-known port list as a reference here.Vaxquis (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details of a TFTP session[edit]

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)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Ozga (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFTP booting is dead[edit]

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)[reply]

- Well it seems you are wrong today TFTP is still used by millions when booting their PXE clients... Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revise layout[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Who's ever heard of a 'dumb terminal' that boots using tftp?[edit]

Who's ever heard of a 'dumb terminal' that boots using tftp? All dumb terminals I've seen are so dumb they're completely incapable of independent network trafic, and have all the 'software' they need in ((E)E)PROM. (But I won't edit the article (yet) as maybe the person who wrote it knows more than me.) /Popup 13:52, 2004 Feb 12 (UTC)

It means diskless terminal, I think Morwen 13:55, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to thin client. (And added port number) /Popup 09:28, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

An article from microsoft[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

contradiction[edit]

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)[reply]

Problems with Disadvantages[edit]

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)[reply]