brian@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Brian Kantor) (10/12/87)
Network Working Group J. Reynolds
Request for Comments: 1011 J. Postel
ISI
Obsoletes: RFCs 991, 961, 943, 924, 901, 880, 840 May 1987
OFFICIAL INTERNET PROTOCOLS
STATUS OF THIS MEMO
This memo is an official status report on the protocols used in the
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.
The following material 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 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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
- all hosts must implement the required protocol,
recommended
- all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended
protocol,
elective
- hosts may implement or not the elective protocol,
experimental
- 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
- 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
Electronic mail: JKREYNOLDS@ISI.EDU
Reynolds & Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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.
The subnet procedures defined in RFC 950 are now considered an
essential part of the IP architecture and must be implemented
by all hosts and gateways.
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
Reynolds & Postel [Page 4]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
RFC 817 (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
Implementation
MIL-STD-1777 (in DPH) - Military Standard Internet Protocol
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 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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 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 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 8]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
OTHER REFERENCES:
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
Bulk Data Transfer Protocol ------------------------------- (NETBLT)
STATUS: Experimental
SPECIFICATION: RFC 998
COMMENTS:
This is a revised RFC on the discussion of the Network Block
Transfer (NETBLT) protocol.
NETBLT (NETwork BLock Transfer) is a transport level protocol
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 designed to provide maximum throughput
over a wide variety of networks. Although NETBLT currently
Reynolds & Postel [Page 9]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
runs on top of the Internet Protocol (IP), it should be able to
operate on top of any datagram protocol similar in function to
IP.
This document is published for discussion and comment, and does
not constitute a standard. The proposal may change and certain
parts of the protocol have not yet been specified;
implementation of this document is therefore not advised.
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 969
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User Datagram
Protocol
CONTACT: markl@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU
Exterior Gateway Protocol ------------------------------------ (EGP)
STATUS: Recommended for Gateways
SPECIFICATION: RFC 888, RFC 904 (in DPH), RFC 975, RFC 985
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@UDEL.EDU
Reynolds & Postel [Page 10]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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
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
Reynolds & Postel [Page 11]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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
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 Internet community, they may be interesting to a number
of researchers and implementors.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
CONTACT: Trudy@ACC.ARPA
Reynolds & Postel [Page 12]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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
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
Reynolds & Postel [Page 13]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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
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
Reynolds & Postel [Page 14]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
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
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
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
Reynolds & Postel [Page 17]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
(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.
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:
Reynolds & Postel [Page 18]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
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.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 19]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early
implementations. Some documentation of these problems can be
found in the file [C.ISI.EDU]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS.
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 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:
Reynolds & Postel [Page 20]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
CONTACT: Brian@SDCSVAX.UCSD.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
NetBIOS Services Protocol -------------------------------- (NETBIOS)
STATUS: Recommended
SPECIFICATION: RFC 1001, 1002
COMMENTS:
These documents define a proposed standard protocol to support
NetBIOS services in a TCP/IP environment. Both local network
and internet operation are supported. Various node types are
defined to accomodate local and internet topologies and to
allow operation with or without the use of IP broadcast
RFC 1001 describes the NetBIOS-over-TCP protocols in a general
manner, with emphasis on the underlying ideas and techniques.
RFC 1002 gives the detailed specifications of the
NetBIOS-over-TCP packets, protocols, and defined constants and
variables.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 2l
l
l