From: barmar@alum.mit.edu   
      
   In article ,   
    glen herrmannsfeldt  wrote:   
      
   > Jorgen Grahn  wrote:   
   >   
   > (snip, I wrote)   
   > >> (snip)   
   >   
   > >> As opposed to TCP carried by some other lower level protocol?   
   > >> Maybe TCP/DDP?   
   >   
   > > "TCP/IP" usually stands for "IP and the various protocols on top of   
   > > it" rather than TCP in particular -- see e.g. the name of this   
   > > newsgroup!   
   >   
   > Yes, and I always note when someone mentions TCP/IP in the context   
   > of UDP. The assumption is that you always have to implement TCP,   
   > but that isn't true.   
   >   
   > If it has to fit in a small ROM (such as diskless booting) or in   
   > hardware (FPGA) then UDP is much easier.   
      
   Technically true. Although only really practical if you only make fairly   
   limited use of the network, e.g. just for diskless booting or   
   configuration with DHCP.  If you do anything more complex, like   
   providing a web-based UI or terminal interface for configuring the   
   device, you'll need TCP.   
      
   So the boot ROM might only need UDP, but whatever it loads in will   
   almost certainly include TCP.   
      
   --   
   Barry Margolin   
   Arlington, MA   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)