TALK Daemon questions

Thread View: comp.unix.programmer

3 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

3 total messages Started by Johnny Szeto Wed, 19 Sep 1990 22:51

#890

Author: Johnny Szeto
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 1990 22:51

23 lines
1314 bytes

I have an interesting conversation with one of my friends in Canada.
BTW, we were conversing over the 'talk' command on unix.  But somehow
I think there are some problems associated with the process.
	i) sometimes I got the mesg "target machine cannot be recognised"
	ii)other times, I got "addr has already been in use (48)"
	iii)last time it was even so frustrating: I was trying to connect
	with him while he was doing the same thing at the same time. I
	have got his talk-initiation mesg on my screen while my
	machine was pinging him!

My questions are:
why do these kinds of things happen?
is there any documentation in RFC that a simple description of the algorithm
can be found?

I have had success sometimes but I had to request so many times before
connection could be established.

Thanks in advance.

Truly,
Leung

Re: TALK Daemon questions

#888

Author: Michael A. Petonic
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 1990 13:19

12 lines
1097 bytes

In article <EMV.90Sep19221142@picasso.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
> [ On why 4.2 BSD talk(1) is broken between machines. ]
>   My questions are:
>   why do these kinds of things happen?
>
>Byte ordering problems are the culprit here.  The protocol for in.talkd
>on 4.2-based systems is architecture dependent and cannot be relied to
>work between machines of different vendors.

See.  You wouldn't have those problems with OSI....   :-)

-MikeP

Re: TALK Daemon questions

#886

Author: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 1990 20:29

17 lines
1497 bytes

In article <6461@uwm.edu> wls@uwm.edu (Bill Stapleton) writes:

> I don't think that's the case in this instance, since he indicates that it
> works OK sometimes.  I think it's probably talk's use of the Unreliable Data
> Protocol (;-) that's at fault.  Over a distance, there's just too many
> places for packets to get lost, with no checks or guarantees.  Canada??  :-)

Well, I've done many talks across the pond, with no significant
problems. Anyway, a NEW talk protocol _standard_ might be an idea
worth considering..

--Kauto
 
--
****************** Kauto Huopio (huopio@kannel.lut.fi) **********************
*US Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland * 
*****************************************************************************

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads