GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc991

Network Working Group J. Reynolds Request for Comments: 991 J. Postel

                                                                   ISI

Obsoletes: RFCs 961, 943, 924, 901, 880, 840 November 1986

                  OFFICIAL ARPA-INTERNET PROTOCOLS

STATUS OF THIS MEMO

 This memo is an official status report on the protocols used in the
 ARPA-Internet community.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

INTRODUCTION

 This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols
 used in the Internet.  Comments indicate any revisions or changes
 planned.
 To first order, the official protocols are those specified in the
 "DDN Protocol Handbook" (DPH), dated December 1985 (this is a three
 volume set with a total thickness of about 5 inches).
 Older collections that include many of these  specifications are the
 "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" (IPTW), dated March 1982; the
 "Internet Mail Protocols", dated November 1982; and the "Internet
 Telnet Protocols and Options", dated June 1983.  There is also a
 volume of protocol related information called the "Internet Protocol
 Implementers Guide" (IPIG) dated August 1982.  An even older
 collection is the "ARPANET Protocol Handbook" (APH) dated
 January 1978.  Nearly all the relevant material from these
 collections has been reproduced in the current DPH.
 This document is organized as a sketchy outline.  The entries are
 protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol).  In each entry there
 are notes on status, specification, comments, other references,
 dependencies, and contact.
    The STATUS is one of: required, recommended, elective,
    experimental, or none.
    The SPECIFICATION identifies the protocol defining documents.
    The COMMENTS describe any differences from the specification or
    problems with the protocol.
    The OTHER REFERENCES identify documents that comment on or expand
    on the protocol.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 1]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

    The DEPENDENCIES indicate what other protocols are called upon by
    this protocol.
    The CONTACT indicates a person who can answer questions about the
    protocol.
    In particular, the status may be:
       required
  1. all hosts must implement the required protocol,
       recommended
  1. all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended

protocol,

       elective
  1. hosts may implement or not the elective protocol,
       experimental
  1. hosts should not implement the experimental protocol

unless they are participating in the experiment and have

          coordinated their use of this protocol with the contact
          person, and
       none
  1. this is not a protocol.
       For further information about protocols in general, please
       contact:
          Joyce K. Reynolds
          USC - Information Sciences Institute
          4676 Admiralty Way
          Marina del Rey, California  90292-6695
          Phone: (213) 822-1511
          ARPA mail: JKREYNOLDS@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 2]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

OVERVIEW

 Catenet Model  ------------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 48 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Gives an overview of the organization and principles of the
       Internet.
       Could be revised and expanded.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       Leiner, B., Cole R., Postel, J., and D. Mills, "The DARPA
       Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985.
       Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, and as ISI/RS-85-153,
       March 1985.
       Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using the DARPA Protocol
       Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985. Also in
       IEEE Communications Magazine, and as ISI/RS-85-151, April 1985.
       Padlipsky, M.A., "The Elements of Networking Style and other
       Essays and Animadversions on the Art of Intercomputer
       Networking", Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1985.
       RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 3]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

NETWORK LEVEL

 Internet Protocol  --------------------------------------------- (IP)
    STATUS:  Required
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 791 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       This is the universal protocol of the Internet.  This datagram
       protocol provides the universal addressing of hosts in the
       Internet.
       A few minor problems have been noted in this document.
       The most serious is a bit of confusion in the route options.
       The route options have a pointer that indicates which octet of
       the route is the next to be used.  The confusion is between the
       phrases "the pointer is relative to this option" and "the
       smallest legal value for the pointer is 4".  If you are
       confused, forget about the relative part, the pointer begins
       at 4.  The MIL-STD description of source routing is wrong in
       some of the details.
       Another important point is the alternate reassembly procedure
       suggested in RFC 815.
       Some changes are in the works for the security option.
       Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.  You
       have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not
       include ICMP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 815 (in DPH) - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms
       RFC 814 (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
       RFC 816 (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
       RFC 817 (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
       Implementation
       MIL-STD-1777 (in DPH) - Military Standard Internet Protocol

Reynolds & Postel [Page 4]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

       RFC 963 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
       Standard Internet Protocol
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Internet Control Message Protocol  --------------------------- (ICMP)
    STATUS:  Required
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 792 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       The control messages and error reports that go with the
       Internet Protocol.
       A few minor errors in the document have been noted.
       Suggestions have been made for additional types of redirect
       message and additional destination unreachable messages.
       Two additional ICMP message types are defined in RFC 950
       "Internet Subnets", Address Mask Request (A1=17), and Address
       Mask Reply (A2=18).
       Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.  You
       have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not
       include ICMP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 950
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 5]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Internet Group Multicast Protocol  --------------------------- (IGMP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 988
    COMMENTS:
       This protocol specifies the extensions required of a host
       implementation of the Internet Protocol (IP) to support
       internetwork multicasting.  This specification supersedes that
       given in RFC 966, and constitutes a proposed protocol standard
       for IP multicasting in the ARPA-Internet.  Reference RFC 966
       for a discussion of the motivation and rationale behind the
       multicasting extension specified here.
    OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 966
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Deering@PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 6]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

HOST LEVEL

 User Datagram Protocol  --------------------------------------- (UDP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 768 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides a datagram service to applications.  Adds port
       addressing to the IP services.
       The only change noted for the UDP specification is a minor
       clarification that if in computing the checksum a padding octet
       is used for the computation it is not transmitted or counted in
       the length.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Transmission Control Protocol  -------------------------------- (TCP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 793 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides reliable end-to-end data stream service.
       Many comments and corrections have been received for the TCP
       specification document.  These are primarily document bugs
       rather than protocol bugs.
       Event Processing Section:  There are many minor corrections and
       clarifications needed in this section.
       Push:  There are still some phrases in the document that give a
       "record mark" flavor to the push.  These should be further
       clarified.  The push is not a record mark.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 7]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

       Urgent:  Page 17 is wrong.  The urgent pointer points to the
       last octet of urgent data (not to the first octet of non-urgent
       data).
       Listening Servers:  Several comments have been received on
       difficulties with contacting listening servers.  There should
       be some discussion of implementation issues for servers, and
       some notes on alternative models of system and process
       organization for servers.
       Maximum Segment Size:  The maximum segment size option should
       be generalized and clarified.  It can be used to either
       increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default.
       The TCP Maximum Segment Size is the IP Maximum Datagram Size
       minus forty.  The default IP Maximum Datagram Size is 576.  The
       default TCP Maximum Segment Size is 536.  For further
       discussion, see RFC 879.
       Idle Connections:  There have been questions about
       automatically closing idle connections.  Idle connections are
       ok, and should not be closed.  There are several cases where
       idle connections arise, for example, in Telnet when a user is
       thinking for a long time following a message from the server
       computer before his next input.  There is no TCP "probe"
       mechanism, and none is needed.
       Queued Receive Data on Closing:  There are several points where
       it is not clear from the description what to do about data
       received by the TCP but not yet passed to the user,
       particularly when the connection is being closed.  In general,
       the data is to be kept to give to the user if he does a RECV
       call.
       Out of Order Segments:  The description says that segments that
       arrive out of order, that is, are not exactly the next segment
       to be processed, may be kept on hand.  It should also point out
       that there is a very large performance penalty for not doing
       so.
       User Time Out:  This is the time out started on an open or send
       call.  If this user time out occurs the user should be
       notified, but the connection should not be closed or the TCB
       deleted.  The user should explicitly ABORT the connection if he
       wants to give up.
    OTHER REFERENCES:

Reynolds & Postel [Page 8]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

       RFC 813 (in DPH) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP
       RFC 814 (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
       RFC 816 (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
       RFC 817 (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
       Implementation
       RFC 879 - TCP Maximum Segment Size
       RFC 889 - Internet Delay Experiments
       RFC 896 - TCP/IP Congestion Control
       MIL-STD-1778 (in DPH) - Military Standard Transmission Control
       Protocol
       RFC 964 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
       Standard Transmission Control Protocol
       Zhang, Lixia, "Why TCP Timers Don't Work Well", Communications
       Architectures and Protocols, ACM SIGCOMM Proceedings,  Computer
       Communications Review, V.16, N.3, August 1986.
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 9]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Host Monitoring Protocol  ------------------------------------- (HMP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 869 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       This is a good tool for debugging protocol implementations in
       remotely located computers.
       This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and the
       TACs.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Hinden@BBN.COM
 Cross Net Debugger  ------------------------------------------ (XNET)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 158 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       A debugging protocol, allows debugger like access to remote
       systems.
       This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 643
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 10]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Exterior Gateway Protocol  ------------------------------------ (EGP)
    STATUS:  Recommended for Gateways
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 888, RFC 904 (in DPH), RFC 975
    COMMENTS:
       The protocol used between gateways of different administrations
       to exchange routing information.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 827, RFC 890
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Mills@ISI.EDU
 Gateway Gateway Protocol  ------------------------------------- (GGP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 823 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       The gateway protocol now used in the core gateways.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Brescia@BBN.COM

Reynolds & Postel [Page 11]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Multiplexing Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (MUX)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 90 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Defines a capability to combine several segments from different
       higher level protocols in one IP datagram.
       No current experiment in progress.  There is some question as
       to the extent to which the sharing this protocol envisions can
       actually take place.  Also, there are some issues about the
       information captured in the multiplexing header being (a)
       insufficient, or (b) over specific.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Stream Protocol  ----------------------------------------------- (ST)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 119 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       A gateway resource allocation protocol designed for use in
       multihost real time applications.
       The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may no
       longer be consistent with this specification.  The document
       should be updated and issued as an RFC.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

Reynolds & Postel [Page 12]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

    CONTACT: jwf@LL-EN.ARPA
 Network Voice Protocol  ------------------------------------ (NVP-II)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  ISI Internal Memo
    COMMENTS:
       Defines the procedures for real time voice conferencing.
       The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should be
       updated and issued as an RFC.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 741 (in DPH)
    DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol
    CONTACT:  Casner@ISI.EDU
 Reliable Data Protocol  --------------------------------------- (RDP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 908 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       This protocol is designed to efficiently support the bulk
       transfer of data for such host monitoring and control
       applications as loading/dumping and remote debugging.  The
       protocol is intended to be simple to implement but still be
       efficient in environments where there may be long transmission
       delays and loss or non-sequential delivery of message segments.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol
    CONTACT:  CWelles@BBN.COM

Reynolds & Postel [Page 13]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol  ---------------------- (IRTP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 938
    COMMENTS:
       This protocol is a transport level host to host protocol
       designed for an internet environment.  While the issues
       discussed may not be directly relevant to the research problems
       of the DARPA community, they may be interesting to a number of
       researchers and implementors.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol
    CONTACT:  Trudy@ACC.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 14]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

APPLICATION LEVEL

 Telnet Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (TELNET)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 854 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       The protocol for remote terminal access.
       This has been revised since the IPTW.  RFC 764 in IPTW is now
       obsolete.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       MIL-STD-1782 (in DPH) - Telnet Protocol
    DEPENDENCIES:  Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 15]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Telnet Options  ------------------------------------ (TELNET-OPTIONS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  General description of options:  RFC 855 (in DPH)
    Number   Name                                    RFC  NIC  DPH USE
    ------   ---------------------------------       --- ----- --- ---
       0     Binary Transmission                     856 ----- yes yes
       1     Echo                                    857 ----- yes yes
       2     Reconnection                            ... 15391 yes  no
       3     Suppress Go Ahead                       858 ----- yes yes
       4     Approx Message Size Negotiation         ... 15393 yes  no
       5     Status                                  859 ----- yes yes
       6     Timing Mark                             860 ----- yes yes
       7     Remote Controlled Trans and Echo        726 39237 yes  no
       8     Output Line Width                       ... 20196 yes  no
       9     Output Page Size                        ... 20197 yes  no
      10     Output Carriage-Return Disposition      652 31155 yes  no
      11     Output Horizontal Tabstops              653 31156 yes  no
      12     Output Horizontal Tab Disposition       654 31157 yes  no
      13     Output Formfeed Disposition             655 31158 yes  no
      14     Output Vertical Tabstops                656 31159 yes  no
      15     Output Vertical Tab Disposition         657 31160 yes  no
      16     Output Linefeed Disposition             658 31161 yes  no
      17     Extended ASCII                          698 32964 yes  no
      18     Logout                                  727 40025 yes  no
      19     Byte Macro                              735 42083 yes  no
      20     Data Entry Terminal                     732 41762 yes  no
      21     SUPDUP                              734 736 42213 yes  no
      22     SUPDUP Output                           749 45449 yes  no
      23     Send Location                           779 ----- yes  no
      24     Terminal Type                           930 ----- yes  no
      25     End of Record                           885 ----- yes  no
      26     TACACS User Identification              927 ----- yes  no
      27     Output Marking                          933 ----- yes  no
      28     Terminal Location Number                946 -----  no  no
     255     Extended-Options-List                   861 ----- yes yes
    The DHP column indicates if the specification is included in the
    DDN Protocol Handbook.  The USE column of the table above
    indicates which options are in general use.
    COMMENTS:
       The Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status,

Reynolds & Postel [Page 16]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

       Timing Mark, and Extended Options List options have been
       recently updated and reissued.  These are the most frequently
       implemented options.
       The remaining options should be reviewed and the useful ones
       should be revised and reissued.  The others should be
       eliminated.
       The following are recommended:  Binary Transmission, Echo,
       Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options
       List.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 File Transfer Protocol  --------------------------------------- (FTP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 959 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       The protocol for moving files between Internet hosts.  Provides
       for access control and negotiation of file parameters.
       The following new optional commands are included in this
       edition of the specification:  Change to Parent Directory
       (CDUP), Structure Mount (SMNT), Store Unique (STOU), Remove
       Directory (RMD), Make Directory (MKD), Print Directory (PWD),
       and System (SYST).  Note that this specification is compatible
       with the previous edition (RFC 765).
       A discrepancy has been found in the specification in the
       examples of Appendix II.  On page 63, a response code of 200 is
       shown as the response to a CWD command.  Under the list of
       Command-Reply Sequences cited on page 50, CWD is shown to only
       accept a 250 response code.  Therefore, if one would interpret
       a CWD command as being excluded from the File System functional
       category, one may assume that the response code of 200 is
       correct, since CDUP as a special case of CWD does use 200.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 17]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 678 (in DPH) - Document File Format Standards
       MIL-STD-1780 (in DPH) - File Transfer Protocol
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Trivial File Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------ (TFTP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 783 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       A very simple file moving protocol, no access control is
       provided.
       This is in use in several local networks.
       Ambiguities in the interpretation of several of the transfer
       modes should be  clarified, and additional transfer modes could
       be defined.  Additional error codes could be defined to more
       clearly identify problems.
       Note: The DPH contains IEN-133, which is an obsolete version of
       this protocol.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 18]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Simple File Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------- (SFTP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 913 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       SFTP is a simple file transfer protocol.  It fills the need of
       people wanting a protocol that is more useful than TFTP but
       easier to implement (and less powerful) than FTP.  SFTP
       supports user access control, file transfers, directory
       listing, directory changing, file renaming and deleting.
       SFTP can be implemented with any reliable 8-bit byte stream
       oriented protocol, this document describes its TCP
       specification.  SFTP uses only one TCP connection; whereas TFTP
       implements a connection over UDP, and FTP uses two TCP
       connections (one using the TELNET protocol).
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: MKL@SRI-NIC.ARPA
 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------- (SMTP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 821 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       The procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts.
       This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
       Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 788 (in IPTW) is
       obsolete.
       There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early
       implementations.  Some documentation of these problems can be
       found in the file [ISIB]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 19]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

       Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should be
       resolved.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 822 - Mail Header Format Standards
          This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
          Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 733 (in IPTW)
          is obsolete.  Further revision of RFC 822 is needed to
          correct some minor errors in the details of the
          specification.
          Note:  RFC 822 is not included in the DPH (an accident, it
          should have been).
       MIL-STD-1781 (in DPH) - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Network News Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------ (NNTP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 977
    COMMENTS:
       NNTP specifies a protocol for the distribution, inquiry,
       retrieval, and posting of news articles using a reliable
       stream-based transmission of news among the ARPA-Internet
       community.  NNTP is designed so that news articles are stored
       in a central database allowing a subscriber to select only
       those items he wishes to read.  Indexing, cross-referencing,
       and expiration of aged messages are also provided.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Brian@SDCSVAX.UCSD.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 20]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Bulk Data Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------- (NETBLT)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 969
    COMMENTS:
       This is a preliminary discussion of the Network Block Transfer
       (NETBLT) protocol.  NETBLT is intended for the rapid transfer
       of a large quantity of data between computers.  It provides a
       transfer that is reliable and flow controlled, and is
       structured to provide maximum throughput over a wide variety of
       networks.
       Note: A new RFC on the revised NETBLT is coming soon.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User Datagram
    Protocol
    CONTACT: DClark@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
 Resource Location Protocol  ----------------------------------- (RLP)
    STATUS:   Elective
    SPECIFICATION:   RFC 887 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       A resource location protocol for use in the ARPA-Internet.
       This protocol utilizes the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) which
       in turn calls on the Internet Protocol to deliver its
       datagrams.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT:   Accetta@A.CS.CMU.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 21]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Loader Debugger Protocol  ------------------------------------- (LDP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 909
    COMMENTS:
       Specifies a protocol for loading, dumping and debugging target
       machines from hosts in a network environment.  It is also
       designed to accommodate a variety of target CPU types.  It
       provides a powerful set of debugging services, while at the
       same time, it is structured so that a simple subset may be
       implemented in applications like boot loading where efficiency
       and space are at a premium.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:  Reliable Data Protocol
    CONTACT:  Hinden@BBN.COM
 Remote Job Entry  --------------------------------------------- (RJE)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 407 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       The general protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving
       the results.
       Some changes needed for use with TCP.
       No known active implementations.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol, Transmission Control
    Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 22]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Remote Job Service  ---------------------------------------- (NETRJS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 740 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       A special protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving the
       results used with the UCLA IBM OS system.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
       Revision in progress.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Braden@ISI.EDU
 Remote Telnet Service  ------------------------------------ (RTELNET)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 818 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 23]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Graphics Protocol  --------------------------------------- (GRAPHICS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  NIC 24308 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       The protocol for vector graphics.
       Very minor changes needed for use with TCP.
       No known active implementations.
       Note:  The DPH claims that this is RFC 493, but RFC 493 is
       actually a different earlier specification.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Echo Protocol  ----------------------------------------------- (ECHO)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 862 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 24]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Discard Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (DISCARD)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 863 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Character Generator Protocol  ----------------------------- (CHARGEN)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 864 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Debugging protocol, sends you ASCII data.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 25]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Quote of the Day Protocol  ---------------------------------- (QUOTE)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 865 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Debugging protocol, sends you a short ASCII message.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Active Users Protocol  -------------------------------------- (USERS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 866 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Lists the currently active users.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Finger Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (FINGER)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 742 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides information on the current or most recent activity of
       a user.
       Some extensions have been suggested.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 26]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

       Some changes are are needed for TCP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 WhoIs Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (NICNAME)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 954 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Accesses the ARPANET Directory database.  Provides a way to
       find out about people, their addresses, phone numbers,
       organizations, and mailboxes.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.ARPA
 Domain Name Protocol  -------------------------------------- (DOMAIN)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 881, RFC 882, RFC 883 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 920 - Domain Requirements
       RFC 921 - Domain Name Implementation Schedule - Revised
       RFC 973 - Domain System Changes and Observations
       RFC 974 - Mail Routing and the Domain System
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol

Reynolds & Postel [Page 27]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

    CONTACT: Mockapetris@ISI.EDU
 HOSTNAME Protocol  --------------------------------------- (HOSTNAME)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 953 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).
       Provides a way to find out about a host in the Internet, its
       Internet Address, and the protocols it implements.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 952 - Host Table Specification
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.ARPA
 Host Name Server Protocol  ----------------------------- (NAMESERVER)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 116 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides machine oriented procedure for translating a host name
       to an Internet Address.
       This specification has significant problems:  1) The name
       syntax is out of date.  2) The protocol details are ambiguous,
       in particular, the length octet either does or doesn't include
       itself and the op code.  3) The extensions are not supported by
       any known implementation.
       This protocol is now abandoned in favor of the DOMAIN protocol.
       Further implementations of this protocol are not advised.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:

Reynolds & Postel [Page 28]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol  ---------------------- (CSNET-NS)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  CS-DN-2 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides access to the CSNET data base of users to give
       information about users names, affiliations, and mailboxes.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Solomon@WISC.EDU
 Daytime Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (DAYTIME)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 867 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides the day and time in ASCII character string.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 29]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Network Time Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (NTP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 958
    COMMENTS:
       A proposed protocol for synchronizing a set of network clocks
       using a set of distributed clients and servers.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 778, RFC 891, RFC 956, and RFC 957.
    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Mills@ISI.EDU
 Time Server Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (TIME)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 868 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides the time as the number of seconds from a specified
       reference time.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 30]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 DCNET Time Server Protocol  --------------------------------- (CLOCK)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 778
    COMMENTS:
       Provides a mechanism for keeping synchronized clocks.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol
    CONTACT: Mills@ISI.EDU
 SUPDUP Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (SUPDUP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 734 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       A special Telnet like protocol for display terminals.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Crispin@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 31]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Internet Message Protocol  ------------------------------------ (MPM)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 759 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol.  The
       implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 767 - Structured Document Formats
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Post Office Protocol - Version 2  ---------------------------- (POP2)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 937 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       The intent of the Post Office Protocol - Version 2 (POP2) is to
       allow a user's workstation to access mail from a mailbox
       server.  It is expected that mail will be posted from the
       workstation to the mailbox server via the Simple Mail Transfer
       Protocol (SMTP).
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  Obsoletes RFC 918
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: JKReynolds@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 32]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Network Standard Text Editor  ------------------------------- (NETED)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 569 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a simple line editor which could be provided by every
       Internet host.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU
 Authentication Service  -------------------------------------- (AUTH)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 931
    COMMENTS:
       This server provides a means to determine the identity of a
       user of a particular TCP connection.  Given a TCP port number
       pair, it returns a character string which identifies the owner
       of that connection on the server's system.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  Supercedes RFC 912
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: StJohns@SRI-NIC.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 33]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Bootstrap Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (BOOTP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 951
    COMMENTS:
       This proposed protocol provides an IP/UDP bootstrap protocol
       which allows a diskless client machine to discover its own IP
       address, the address of a server host, and the name of a file
       to be loaded into memory and executed.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Croft@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 34]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

APPENDICES

 Assigned Numbers  ---------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 990
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the fields of various protocols that are assigned
       specific values for actual use, and lists the currently
       assigned values.
       Issued November 1986, replaces RFC 960, RFC 790 in IPTW, and
       RFC 943.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: JKReynolds@ISI.EDU
 Pre-emption  --------------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 794 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 35]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Service Mappings  ---------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 795 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the mapping of the IP type of service field onto the
       parameters of some specific networks.
       Out of date, needs revision.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Address Mappings  ---------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 796 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the mapping between Internet Addresses and the
       addresses of some specific networks.
       Out of date, needs revision.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU
 Document Formats  ---------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 678 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes standard format rules for several types of documents.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 36]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Bitmap Formats  -----------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 797 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard format for bitmap data.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU
 Facsimile Formats  --------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 804
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard format for facsimile data.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 769 (in DPH)
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU
 Host-Front End Protocol  ------------------------------------- (HFEP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 929
    COMMENTS:
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 928
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Padlipsky@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 37]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Internet Protocol on ARPANET  ----------------------------- (IP-ARPA)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  BBN Report 1822
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
       the ARPANET.
    OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 851, RFC 852, RFC 878 (in DPH), RFC 979
    CONTACT:  Malis@BBN.COM
 Internet Protocol on WBNET  --------------------------------- (IP-WB)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 907 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
       the Wideband Net.
       This protocol specifies the network-access level communication
       between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and a
       packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET.
       Note:  Implementations of HAP should be performed in
       coordination with satellite network development and operations
       personnel.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Blumenthal@BBN.COM

Reynolds & Postel [Page 38]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Host Access Protocol  -------------------------------------- (IP-SAT)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 907  (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
       the SATNET.
       This protocol specifies the network-access level communication
       between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and a
       packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET.
       Note:  Implementations of HAP should be performed in
       coordination with satellite network development and operations
       personnel.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Schoen@BBN.COM
 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks  ------------------------ (IP-X25)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 877 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
       Public Data Networks.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  jtk@PURDUE.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 39]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Internet Protocol on DC Networks  --------------------------- (IP-DC)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 891 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 778 - DCNET Internet Clock Service
    CONTACT:  Mills@ISI.EDU
 Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks  ---------------------- (IP-E)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 894 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 893
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU
 Internet Protocol on Experimental Ethernet Networks  -------- (IP-EE)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 895 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 40]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Internet Protocol on IEEE 802  ---------------------------- (IP-IEEE)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 948 (in DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       A proposed protocol of two methods of encapsulating Internet
       Protocol (IP) datagrams on an IEEE 802.3 network.  Currently
       being revised to be generalized for all 802 networks.
       At an ad hoc special session on "IEEE 802 Networks and ARP"
       held during the TCP Vendors Workshop (August 1986), an approach
       to a consistent way to sent DOD-IP datagrams and other IP
       related protocols on 802 networks was developed.
       Due to some evolution of the IEEE 802.2 standards and the need
       to provide for a standard way to do additional DOD-IP related
       protocols (such as Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)) on IEEE
       802 networks, the following new policy is established, which
       will replace the current policy (see RFC-990 section on IEEE
       802 Numbers of Interest, and RFC-948).
       The policy is for DDN and ARPA-Internet community to use IEEE
       802.2 encapsulation on 802.3, 802.4, and 802.5 networks by
       using the SNAP with an organization code indicating that the
       following 16 bits specify the Ethertype code (where IP = 2048
       (0800 hex), see RFC-990  section on Ethernet Numbers of
       Interest).
                                                                Header
          ...--------+--------+--------+
           MAC Header|      Length     |               802.{3/4/5} MAC
          ...--------+--------+--------+
          +--------+--------+--------+
          | Dsap=K1| Ssap=K1| control|                       802.2 SAP
          +--------+--------+--------+
          +--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
          |protocol id or org code =K2|    Ether Type   |   802.2 SNAP
          +--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
       The values of K1 and K2 must be assigned by the IEEE.  There is
       already assigned a value of K1 that indicates that the 5-octet

Reynolds & Postel [Page 41]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

       SNAP header follows.  We can use this value.  There may be a
       value of K2 that is already assigned that indicates that the
       last two octets of the SNAP header holds the EtherType.  If so
       we may be able to use this value.
       The total length of the SAP Header and the SNAP header is
       8-octets, making the 802.2 protocol overhead come out on a nice
       octet boundary.
       K1 is 170.  The IEEE like to talk about things in bit
       transmission order and specifies this value as 01010101.  In
       big-endian order, as used in Internet specifications, this
       becomes 10101010 binary, or AA hex, or 170 decimal.
       We believe that K2 is 0 (zero).  This must be further
       investigated, but as an interim measure use K2 = 0.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU
 Internet Subnet Protocol  ---------------------------------- (IP-SUB)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 950
    COMMENTS:
       This is a very important feature and should be included in all
       IP implementations.
       Specifies procedures for the use of subnets, which are logical
       sub-sections of a single Internet network.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 940, RFC 917, RFC 925, RFC 932, RFC 936,
    RFC 922
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT:  Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 42]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

 Address Resolution Protocol  ---------------------------------- (ARP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 826  (IN DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       This is a procedure for finding the network hardware address
       corresponding to an Internet Address.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU
 A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol  ----------------------- (RARP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 903 (IN DPH)
    COMMENTS:
       This is a procedure for workstations to dynamically find their
       protocol address (e.g., their Internet Address), when they only
       only know their hardware address (e.g., their attached physical
       network address).
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
 Multi-LAN Address Resolution Protocol  ----------------------- (MARP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 925
    COMMENTS:
       Discussion of the various problems and potential solutions of
       "transparent subnets" in a multi-LAN environment.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 917, RFC 826

Reynolds & Postel [Page 43]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU
 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams  ------------------------- (IP-BROAD)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 919
    COMMENTS:
       A proposed protocol of simple rules for broadcasting Internet
       datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for
       addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them.
       Recommended in the sense of "if you do broadcasting at all then
       do it this way".
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 922
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams with Subnets --------- (IP-SUB-BROAD)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 922
    COMMENTS:
       A proposed protocol of simple rules for broadcasting Internet
       datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for
       addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them.
       Recommended in the sense of "if you do broadcasting with
       subnets at all then do it this way".
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 919

Reynolds & Postel [Page 44]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
 Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  --------------------- (RATP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 916
    COMMENTS:
       This paper specifies a protocol which allows two programs to
       reliably communicate over a communication link.  It ensures
       that the data entering one end of the link if received arrives
       at the other end intact and unaltered.  This proposed protocol
       is designed to operate over a full duplex point-to-point
       connection.  It contains some features which tailor it to the
       RS-232 links now in current use.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Finn@ISI.EDU
 Thinwire Protocol  --------------------------------------- (THINWIRE)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 914
    COMMENTS:
       This paper discusses a Thinwire Protocol for connecting
       personal computers to the ARPA-Internet.  It primarily focuses
       on the particular problems in the ARPA-Internet of low speed
       network interconnection with personal computers, and possible
       methods of solution.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:

Reynolds & Postel [Page 45]

RFC 991 November 1986 Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Farber@HUEY.UDEL.EDU

Reynolds & Postel [Page 46]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc991.txt · Last modified: 1986/11/14 16:57 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki