On 2018-02-24 01:56, Paul Koning wrote:
On Feb 23, 2018, at 5:28 PM, Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
That's why a MOP load normally consists of asking for a program - which is the
secondary loader. It's the secondary (or tertiary) loader that knows how to
unpack an image and make additional requests.
Hum. Well, that might be, but both will be served through MOP, so it don't make
much difference if it's the primary or secondary boot. They are served the same
Almost. A secondary loader response carries the entire secondary loader in a
single message, so the bootstrap only needs to handle one message. Tertiary
and OS loads are expected to take multiple messages.
Yes. But what difference does that make on the server side? The fact
that the requested image is small enough to fit into one frame is just a
detail that makes the client implementation easier.
Either way, though, the MOP protocol spec only describes bits on the wire. How
those bits are derived from files on the serving host is a host matter. Since
multiple host types support loading various devices such as routers or terminal
servers, it seems likely that they share an on-disk format, but if they do,
that's a packaging convenience question, not something the MOP spec addresses.
You can think of MOP as a simple data transfer protocol; the fact that clients
use it to load executable bits into memory is not required. The same is true
for TFTP, and there the name of the protocol makes the point explicit. MOP
doesn't say it quite so clearly but it is just as true there.
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Simh mailing list