I have a feeling the higher CPU and I/O requirements would make BitTorrent either impractical or make a negligible different in load times (especially since the loads aren't all that large).<br><br><span style="font-family:Prelude, Verdana, san-serif;"><br><br></span><span id="signature"><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;color: #999999;">Matthew Ballard<br>Network Manager<br>Otis College of Art and Design<br>mballard@otis.edu<br><br>Sent from my Palm Pre</div></span><span style="color:navy; font-family:Prelude, Verdana, san-serif; "><hr align="left" style="width:75%">On Apr 22, 2010 12:27 PM, Norton, Mike <mikenorton@pwsd76.ab.ca> wrote: <br><br>BitTorrent would be an awesome choice of protocol, methinks. The more phones you have, the faster they’d load.
<br>
<br>--
<br>Mike Norton
<br>I.T. Support
<br>Peace Wapiti School Division No. 76
<br>Helpdesk: 780-831-3080
<br>Direct: 780-831-3076
<br>
<br>
<br>From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
<br>Sent: April-22-10 12:05 PM
<br>To: Wes Sisk
<br>Cc: cisco-voip voyp list
<br>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Phone tftp client vs ftp client
<br>
<br>well, considering Connection does directory updates via SMTP, you never know what might happen.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>---
<br>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
<br>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
<br>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
<br>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<br>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
<br> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
<br>
<br>
<br>----- Original Message -----
<br>From: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk@cisco.com>
<br>To: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons@us.didata.com>
<br>Cc: "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
<br>Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:01:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
<br>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Phone tftp client vs ftp client
<br>
<br>Anything not released is roadmap and under NDA. I've not heard any ftp discussions but I have heard other transfer protocols discussed.
<br>
<br>/Wes
<br>
<br>On Thursday, April 22, 2010 1:47:38 PM, Jason Aarons (US) <jason.aarons@us.didata.com><mailto:jason.aarons@us.didata.com> wrote:
<br>
<br>I wonder if there are any long term plans to switch from tftp to ftp as phone image files keep growing larger…..seems a phone across a slow wan shouldn’t take 15-20 minutes to upgrade a 9MB image. I switched to ftp/http for router upgrades years ago as it was almost twice as fast. Wish the phones would change from tftp to ftp or http, etc.
<br>
<br>TFTP benefits
<br> Small footprint client
<br>
<br>TFTP limitations
<br> ACK every packet
<br> 512 byte packet size maximum
<br>
<br>FTP benefits
<br> 1500 byte packets
<br> Scaling windows TCP, etc
<br> No real drawbacks except client footprint is larger
<br>________________________________
<br>
<br>Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>________________________________
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>
<br>cisco-voip mailing list
<br>
<br>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
<br>
<br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
<br></span>