RFC851 - ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol(2)

时间:2005-02-11 来源: 作者: 点击:
Bits 22-24: Leader Flags: Bit 22: Available as a destination host flag. Bits 23-24: Reserved for future use, set to zero. Bits 25-32: Message Type: Type 0: Regular Message - All host-to-host communic
  

Bits 22-24: Leader Flags:

Bit 22: Available as a destination host flag.

Bits 23-24: Reserved for future use, set to zero.

Bits 25-32: Message Type:

Type 0: Regular Message - All host-to-host communication

occurs via regular messages, which have several sub-

types. The sub-type field (bits 77-80) is the same as

sent in the host-to-IMP leader (see section 3.1).

Type 1: Error in Leader - See 1822(3.4).

Type 2: IMP Going Down - See 1822(3.4).

- 36 -

1822L Host Access Protocol April 1983
RFC851

Type 3: NDM Reply - This is a reply to the NDM host-to-IMP

message (see section 3.1). It will have the same

number of entries as the NDM message that is being

replying to, and each listed 1822L name will be

accompanied by a zero or a one (see figure 6). A zero

signifies that the name is not effective, and a one

means that the name is now effective.

Type 4: NOP - The host should discard this message. It is

used during initialization of the IMP/host

communication. The Destination Host field will contain

the 1822L Address of the host port over which the NOP

is being sent. All other fields are unused.

Type 5: Ready for Next Message (RFNM) - See 1822(3.4).

Type 6: Dead Host Status - See 1822(3.4).

Type 7: Destination Host or IMP Dead (or unknown) - See

1822(3.4).

Type 8: Error in Data - See 1822(3.4).

Type 9: Incomplete Transmission - See 1822(3.4).

Type 10: Interface Reset - See 1822(3.4).

Type 11: Name Server Reply - This reply to the Name Server

Request host-to-IMP message contains a word with the

selection policy and the number of physical addresses

to which the destination name maps, followed by two

words per physical address: the first word contains an

- 37 -

1822L Host Access Protocol April 1983
RFC851

1822L address, and the second word contains a bit

signifying whether or not that particular translation

is effective and the routing distance (in 6.4 ms units)

to the address's IMP. In figure 8, EFF is 1 for

effective and 0 for non-effective, and POL is a two-bit

number indicating the selection policy for the name

(see section 2.2.2):

0: First reachable.

1: Closest physical address.

2: Load leveling.

3: Unused.

- 38 -

1822L Host Access Protocol April 1983
RFC851

1 16 17 32 33 48
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | | |
| 0E00 | 000B | 0000 |
| | | |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
49 64 65 80 81 96
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | | |
| dest. name | 0000 | 0000 |
| | | |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
97 112 113 128 129 144
+-+--------------+----------------+-+--------------+
|P| | |E| |
|O| # of addrs | 1822L addr #1 |F| routing dist |
|L| | |F| |
+-+--------------+----------------+-+--------------+
145 160 161 176
+----------------+-+--------------+
| |E| |
| 1822L addr #2 |F| routine dist | etc.
| |F| |
+----------------+-+--------------+

Figure 8. Name Server Reply Format

Type 12: Port List Reply - This is the reply to the Port

List Request host-to-IMP message. It contains the

number of names that map to this physical host port,

followed by two words per name: the first word contains

an 1822L name that maps to this port, and the second

contains either a zero or a one, signifying whether or

not that particular translation is effective. The

format is identical to the type 3 NDM Reply message

- 39 -

1822L Host Access Protocol April 1983
RFC851

(see figure 6).

Type 15: 1822L Name or Address Error - This message is sent

in response to a type 0 message from a host that

contained an erroneous Source Host or Destination Host

field. Its sub-types are:

0: The Source Host 1822L name is not authorized or not

effective.

1: The Source Host 1822L address does not match the

host port used to send the message.

2: The Destination Host 1822L name is not authorized.

3: The physical host to which this singly-homed

Destination Host name translated is authorized and

up, but not effective. If the host was actually

down, a type 7 message would be returned, not a

type 15.

4: The Source or Destination Host field contains a

1822L name, but the host being addressed is on a

non-C/30 IMP (see figure 4 in section 2.2.4).

5: The multi-homed Destination Host name is authorized,

but has no available effective translations.

6: A logically-addressed uncontrolled packet was sent

to a dead or non-effective host port. However, if

it is resubmitted, there may be another effective

host port to which the IMP may be able to attempt

- 40 -

1822L Host Access Protocol April 1983
RFC851

to send the packet.

7: Logical addressing is not in use in this network.

8-15: Unassigned.

Types 13-14,16-255: Unassigned.

Bits 33-48: Source Host:

For type 0 messages, this field contains the 1822L name or

address of the host that originated the message. All

replies to the message should be sent to the host specified

herein. For message types 5-9 and 15, this field contains

the source host field used in a previous type 0 message sent

by this host.

Bits 49-64: Destination Host:

For type 0 messages, this field contains the 1822L name or

address that the message was sent to. This allows the

destination host to detect how it was specified by the

source host. For message types 5-9 and 15, this field

contains the destination host field used in a previous type

0 message sent by this host.

Bits 65-76: Message ID:

For message types 0, 5, 7-9, and 15, this is the value

assigned by the source host to identify the message (see

section 3.1). This field is also used by message types 2

- 41 -

1822L Host Access Protocol April 1983
RFC851

and 6.

Bits 77-80: Sub-type:

This field is used as a modifier by message types 0-2, 5-7,

9, and 15.

Bits 81-96: Message Length:

This field is contained in type 0, 3, 11, and 12 messages

only, and is the actual length in bits of the message

(exclusive of leader, leader padding, and hardware padding)

as computed by the IMP.

- 42 -

1822L Host Access Protocol April 1983
RFC851

4 REFERENCES

[1] Specifications for the Interconnection of a Host and an IMP,

BBN Report 1822, December 1981 Revision.

[2] A. Malis, The ARPANET Short Blocking Feature, Request For

Comments 852, April 1983.

[3] E. C. Rosen et. al., ARPANET Routing Algorithm Improvements,

Internet Experimenter's Note 183 (also published as BBN

Report 4473, Vol. 1), August 1980, pp. 55-107.

[4] J. Postel, Assigned Numbers, Request For Comments 820,

January 1983, p. 11.

- 43 -

1822L Host Access Protocol April 1983
RFC851

INDEX

1822...................................................... 4
1822 address.............................................. 6
1822 host................................................. 5
1822L..................................................... 4
1822L address............................................. 7
1822L host................................................ 5
1822L name................................................ 6
address selection policy................................. 12
authorized................................................ 9
blocking................................................. 22
closest physical address................................. 13
connection............................................... 22
destination host..................................... 33, 41
effective................................................ 10
first reachable.......................................... 12
handing type......................................... 29, 36
host downs............................................... 13
leader flags......................................... 29, 36
link field............................................... 34
load leveling............................................ 13
logical addressing........................................ 4
message ID........................................... 34, 41
message length........................................... 42
message type......................................... 30, 36
multi-homing.............................................. 4
name server...................................... 24, 32, 37
NDM.................................................. 10, 30
NDM reply............................................ 10, 37
NOC....................................................... 9
NOP........................................... 5, 20, 32, 37
priority bit............................................. 29
regular message...................................... 30, 36
RFNM................................................. 22, 37
source host.......................................... 33, 41
standard message......................................... 30
sub-type............................................. 34, 42
symmetric................................................. 5
trace bit............................................ 29, 36
uncontrolled packet.................................. 18, 30
------分隔线----------------------------
顶一下
(0)
0%
踩一下
(0)
0%
------分隔线----------------------------
最新评论 查看所有评论
发表评论 查看所有评论
请自觉遵守互联网相关的政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
评价:
表情:
用户名: 密码: 验证码:
推荐内容