GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc21

Network Working Group V. Cerf Request for Comments: 21 UCLA

                                                      October 17, 1969

At UCLA on October 10, there was a network meeting attended by:

         SDC                             UCLA
      John Kreznar                    Vint Cerf
      Dick Linde                      Steve Crocker
      Marty Bleier                    Jon Postel
      Bob Long                        Michel Elie
         UCSB
      Ron Stoughton
      Nancy O'Hara
      George Gregg

Topics discussed:

      1.  Revisions to BBN memo 1822
      
      2.  Revisions to NWG/RFC 11
      3.  Transmission of multiple control messages

1. Changes to BBN Memo No. 1822 (underlined)

  As informally communicated by Dave Wa
  p. 11 "The IMP program can handle up to 63 active transmit links
  and 63 active receive links at a time.  If the Host attempts to
  send a message on a new link when 63 active transmit links already
  exist, a "Link Table Full" message will be sent from the IMP to
  the Host, and the message will be discarded."
  
  p. 11 "1.  Any link that is not used for a period of 26 seconds
     will have its entry automatically deleted by the IMP program."

[Cerf: How about deleting only if the transmit link table is full?

Crocker: No, because there is no other way for links to be deleted

         so they would always tend to accumulate.  Furthermore,
         the table at one site may be full while another site may
         not be.]
  p. 13  "5 Regular with discard."
  This allows IMP systems to generate traffic which never actually
  reaches any Hosts since it will be discarded when it reaches the 
  top of the IMP-HOST queue in the destination Host's IMP.  The
  Network Measurement Center will make use of this feature.
  p. 13  Message type 6 is no longer assigned, and message type 10
  is really in octal so is actually type 8.  Types 9-15 are unassigned.
  p. 17   Type 10 is really type 8.

2. Revisions to NWG/RFC 11

  This memo has been obsoleted by developments at UCLA and
  discussions with other nodes.  NWG/RFC 22 contains some of the
  major changes.  An updated version of NWG/RFC 11 is forthcoming.

3. George Gregg of UCSB will publish NWG/RFC 23 concerning the

  transmission of multiple control messages over control links.
/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc21.txt · Last modified: 2001/05/10 03:43 (external edit)