rfc1763.txt
来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 564 行 · 第 1/2 页
TXT
564 行
RFC 1763 PPP BVCP March 1995
type. The rejection (or absence) of this option indicates that
the peer will send NS-RTP updates as if the link was a WAN type.
By default, NS-RTP updates are sent as if the link was a WAN type.
A summary of the BV-NS-RTP-Link-Type Configuration Option format is
shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
1
Length
2
3.2. BV-FRP
Description
This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of
VINES Fragmentation Protocol (FRP). This protocol is used to
allow fragmentation and reassembly of a VINES packet over the
link. FRP prepends a two octet field to every packet going over
the link that contains a begin and end fragment information and a
sequence number. With PPP's default MRU of 1500, FRP is not
normally needed, and no FRP header would be sent with the VINES
packet. If a MRU of less than 1484 is negotiated, FRP will be
needed to send a full size VINES packet over the link. More
information on this can be found in [2].
This option negotiates what an implementation is willing to
receive, and is negotiated separately per side of the PPP
connection. The acceptance of this option (by the peer) indicates
that the peer will send VINES packets with a FRP header. The
rejection (or absence) of this option indicates that the peer will
send VINES packets without a FRP header.
By default, VINES packets are sent without a FRP header.
Senum [Page 6]
RFC 1763 PPP BVCP March 1995
A summary of the BV-FRP Configuration Option format is shown below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
2
Length
2
3.3. BV-RTP
Description
This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate whether RTP
is used over the link. If dial-up lines with static routes are
being used, the use of RTP may be totally suppressed to conserve
bandwidth on the link.
This option negotiates what an implementation is willing to
receive, and is negotiated separately per side of the PPP
connection. The acceptance of this option (by the peer) indicates
that the peer will not send RTP packets. The rejection (or
absence) of this option indicates that the peer will send any RTP
packets.
By default, RTP packets are sent over the link.
Senum [Page 7]
RFC 1763 PPP BVCP March 1995
A summary of the BV-RTP Configuration Option format is shown below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
3
Length
2
3.4. BV-Suppress-Broadcast
Description
This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the sending
of VINES broadcast packets, i.e., packets with a destination VINES
network address of all ones. This option only affects VINES
packets that are not of type VINES ARP or VINES RTP. This option
can be used by a VINES Client to request that most of the
broadcast packets that would normally be sent to it by a VINES
Server be discarded, in order to conserve link bandwidth. Most of
the broadcast packets sent by a VINES Server are not useful to a
VINES Client.
This option negotiates what an implementation is willing to
receive, and is negotiated separately per side of the PPP
connection. The acceptance of this option (by the peer) indicates
that the peer MUST NOT send any VINES broadcast packets, other
than packets of type VINES ARP or VINES RTP. The rejection (or
absence) of this option indicates that the peer will send all
VINES broadcast packets.
By default, all VINES broadcast packets are sent.
Senum [Page 8]
RFC 1763 PPP BVCP March 1995
A summary of the BV-Suppress-Broadcast Configuration Option format is
shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
4
Length
2
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
References
[1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC
1661, Daydreamer, July 1994.
[2] Banyan, "VINES Protocol Definition", June 1993, Order No.
003673.
[3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.
Acknowledgements
Some of the text in this document is taken from previous documents
produced by the Point-to-Point Protocol Working Group of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF).
In particular, Bill Simpson provided the boiler-plate used to create
this document.
Senum [Page 9]
RFC 1763 PPP BVCP March 1995
Chair's Address
The working group can be contacted via the current chair:
Fred Baker
Cisco Systems
519 Lado Drive
Santa Barbara, California 93111
Phone: (805) 681-0115
EMail: fred@cisco.com
Author's Address
Questions about this memo can also be directed to:
Steven J. Senum
DigiBoard
6400 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Phone: (612) 943-9020
EMail: sjs@digibd.com
Senum [Page 10]
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码Ctrl + C
搜索代码Ctrl + F
全屏模式F11
增大字号Ctrl + =
减小字号Ctrl + -
显示快捷键?