Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!pyrltd!root44!hrc63!fddi
From: fddi@gec-rl-hrc.co.uk (FDDI Group (Ian Wakeman - A26))
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Reliable Broadcasts? (was Re: Reliable Datagram ??? Protocols)
Message-ID: <1990Oct24.094329.5037@gec-rl-hrc.co.uk>
Date: 24 Oct 90 09:43:29 GMT
References: <9010221418.AA03839@ftp.com> <GNB.90Oct23133132@leo.bby.oz.au>
Reply-To: fddi@hrc63.UUCP (FDDI Group (Ian Wakeman - A26))
Organization: GEC Hirst Research Centre
Lines: 14

In article <GNB.90Oct23133132@leo.bby.oz.au> gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>I would be happy for some sort of overhead for the reliability (e.g.
>server broadcasts empty packets with the highest serial number once
>every 10 seconds), but before I re-invent wheels, has someone done
>something like this?
>Greg.
although it may be heresy to say it in this group, XTP has some reliable
multicast features inside of it, although I doubt whether they've been
tested on a WAN, and claiming reliable multicast without group management
facilities is a trifle absurd - how do you know that all possible respondees
have replied? (Yes, I know that group management is then delegated to the
session management :-)

ian