rfc791.txt

RFC 相关的技术文档

        timestamps.  The intitial contents of the timestamp data area
        must be zero or internet address/zero pairs.

        If the timestamp data area is already full (the pointer exceeds
        the length) the datagram is forwarded without inserting the
        timestamp, but the overflow count is incremented by one.

        If there is some room but not enough room for a full timestamp
        to be inserted, or the overflow count itself overflows, the
        original datagram is considered to be in error and is discarded.
        In either case an ICMP parameter problem message may be sent to
        the source host [3].

        The timestamp option is not copied upon fragmentation.  It is
        carried in the first fragment.  Appears at most once in a
        datagram.

  Padding:  variable

    The internet header padding is used to ensure that the internet
    header ends on a 32 bit boundary.  The padding is zero.

3.2.  Discussion

  The implementation of a protocol must be robust.  Each implementation
  must expect to interoperate with others created by different
  individuals.  While the goal of this specification is to be explicit
  about the protocol there is the possibility of differing
  interpretations.  In general, an implementation must be conservative
  in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior.  That
  is, it must be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but must accept
  any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to technical
  errors where the meaning is still clear).

  The basic internet service is datagram oriented and provides for the
  fragmentation of datagrams at gateways, with reassembly taking place
  at the destination internet protocol module in the destination host.
  Of course, fragmentation and reassembly of datagrams within a network
  or by private agreement between the gateways of a network is also
  allowed since this is transparent to the internet protocols and the
  higher-level protocols.  This transparent type of fragmentation and
  reassembly is termed "network-dependent" (or intranet) fragmentation
  and is not discussed further here.

  Internet addresses distinguish sources and destinations to the host
  level and provide a protocol field as well.  It is assumed that each
  protocol will provide for whatever multiplexing is necessary within a
  host.


                                                               [Page 23]


                                                          September 1981
Internet Protocol
Specification



  Addressing

    To provide for flexibility in assigning address to networks and
    allow for the  large number of small to intermediate sized networks
    the interpretation of the address field is coded to specify a small
    number of networks with a large number of host, a moderate number of
    networks with a moderate number of hosts, and a large number of
    networks with a small number of hosts.  In addition there is an
    escape code for extended addressing mode.

    Address Formats:

      High Order Bits   Format                           Class
      ---------------   -------------------------------  -----
            0            7 bits of net, 24 bits of host    a
            10          14 bits of net, 16 bits of host    b
            110         21 bits of net,  8 bits of host    c
            111         escape to extended addressing mode

      A value of zero in the network field means this network.  This is
      only used in certain ICMP messages.  The extended addressing mode
      is undefined.  Both of these features are reserved for future use.

    The actual values assigned for network addresses is given in
    "Assigned Numbers" [9].

    The local address, assigned by the local network, must allow for a
    single physical host to act as several distinct internet hosts.
    That is, there must be a mapping between internet host addresses and
    network/host interfaces that allows several internet addresses to
    correspond to one interface.  It must also be allowed for a host to
    have several physical interfaces and to treat the datagrams from
    several of them as if they were all addressed to a single host.

    Address mappings between internet addresses and addresses for
    ARPANET, SATNET, PRNET, and other networks are described in "Address
    Mappings" [5].

  Fragmentation and Reassembly.

    The internet identification field (ID) is used together with the
    source and destination address, and the protocol fields, to identify
    datagram fragments for reassembly.

    The More Fragments flag bit (MF) is set if the datagram is not the
    last fragment.  The Fragment Offset field identifies the fragment
    location, relative to the beginning of the original unfragmented
    datagram.  Fragments are counted in units of 8 octets.  The


[Page 24]                                                               


September 1981                                                          
                                                       Internet Protocol
                                                           Specification



    fragmentation strategy is designed so than an unfragmented datagram
    has all zero fragmentation information (MF = 0, fragment offset =
    0).  If an internet datagram is fragmented, its data portion must be
    broken on 8 octet boundaries.

    This format allows 2**13 = 8192 fragments of 8 octets each for a
    total of 65,536 octets.  Note that this is consistent with the the
    datagram total length field (of course, the header is counted in the
    total length and not in the fragments).

    When fragmentation occurs, some options are copied, but others
    remain with the first fragment only.

    Every internet module must be able to forward a datagram of 68
    octets without further fragmentation.  This is because an internet
    header may be up to 60 octets, and the minimum fragment is 8 octets.

    Every internet destination must be able to receive a datagram of 576
    octets either in one piece or in fragments to be reassembled.

    The fields which may be affected by fragmentation include:

      (1) options field
      (2) more fragments flag
      (3) fragment offset
      (4) internet header length field
      (5) total length field
      (6) header checksum

    If the Don't Fragment flag (DF) bit is set, then internet
    fragmentation of this datagram is NOT permitted, although it may be
    discarded.  This can be used to prohibit fragmentation in cases
    where the receiving host does not have sufficient resources to
    reassemble internet fragments.

    One example of use of the Don't Fragment feature is to down line
    load a small host.  A small host could have a boot strap program
    that accepts a datagram stores it in memory and then executes it.

    The fragmentation and reassembly procedures are most easily
    described by examples.  The following procedures are example
    implementations.

    General notation in the following pseudo programs: "=<" means "less
    than or equal", "#" means "not equal", "=" means "equal", "<-" means
    "is set to".  Also, "x to y" includes x and excludes y; for example,
    "4 to 7" would include 4, 5, and 6 (but not 7).



                                                               [Page 25]


                                                          September 1981
Internet Protocol
Specification



    An Example Fragmentation Procedure

      The maximum sized datagram that can be transmitted through the
      next network is called the maximum transmission unit (MTU).

      If the total length is less than or equal the maximum transmission
      unit then submit this datagram to the next step in datagram
      processing; otherwise cut the datagram into two fragments, the
      first fragment being the maximum size, and the second fragment
      being the rest of the datagram.  The first fragment is submitted
      to the next step in datagram processing, while the second fragment
      is submitted to this procedure in case it is still too large.

      Notation:

        FO    -  Fragment Offset
        IHL   -  Internet Header Length
        DF    -  Don't Fragment flag
        MF    -  More Fragments flag
        TL    -  Total Length
        OFO   -  Old Fragment Offset
        OIHL  -  Old Internet Header Length
        OMF   -  Old More Fragments flag
        OTL   -  Old Total Length
        NFB   -  Number of Fragment Blocks
        MTU   -  Maximum Transmission Unit

      Procedure:

        IF TL =< MTU THEN Submit this datagram to the next step
             in datagram processing ELSE IF DF = 1 THEN discard the
        datagram ELSE
        To produce the first fragment:
        (1)  Copy the original internet header;
        (2)  OIHL <- IHL; OTL <- TL; OFO <- FO; OMF <- MF;
        (3)  NFB <- (MTU-IHL*4)/8;
        (4)  Attach the first NFB*8 data octets;
        (5)  Correct the header:
             MF <- 1;  TL <- (IHL*4)+(NFB*8);
             Recompute Checksum;
        (6)  Submit this fragment to the next step in
             datagram processing;
        To produce the second fragment:
        (7)  Selectively copy the internet header (some options
             are not copied, see option definitions);
        (8)  Append the remaining data;
        (9)  Correct the header:
             IHL <- (((OIHL*4)-(length of options not copied))+3)/4;


[Page 26]                                                               


September 1981                                                          
                                                       Internet Protocol
                                                           Specification



             TL <- OTL - NFB*8 - (OIHL-IHL)*4);
             FO <- OFO + NFB;  MF <- OMF;  Recompute Checksum;
        (10) Submit this fragment to the fragmentation test; DONE.

      In the above procedure each fragment (except the last) was made
      the maximum allowable size.  An alternative might produce less
      than the maximum size datagrams.  For example, one could implement
      a fragmentation procedure that repeatly divided large datagrams in
      half until the resulting fragments were less than the maximum
      transmission unit size.

    An Example Reassembly Procedure

      For each datagram the buffer identifier is computed as the
      concatenation of the source, destination, protocol, and
      identification fields.  If this is a whole datagram (that is both
      the fragment offset and the more fragments  fields are zero), then
      any reassembly resources associated with this buffer identifier
      are released and the datagram is forwarded to the next step in
      datagram processing.

      If no other fragment with this buffer identifier is on hand then
      reassembly resources are allocated.  The reassembly resources
      consist of a data buffer, a header buffer, a fragment block bit
      table, a total data length field, and a timer.  The data from the
      fragment is placed in the data buffer according to its fragment
      offset and length, and bits are set in the fragment block bit
      table corresponding to the fragment blocks received.

      If this is the first fragment (that is the fragment offset is
      zero)  this header is placed in the header buffer.  If this is the
      last fragment ( that is the more fragments field is zero) the
      total data length is computed.  If this fragment completes the
      datagram (tested by checking the bits set in the fragment block
      table), then the datagram is sent to the next step in datagram
      processing; otherwise the timer is set to the maximum of the
      current timer value and the value of the time to live field from
      this fragment; and the reassembly routine gives up control.

      If the timer runs out, the all reassembly resources for this
      buffer identifier are released.  The initial setting of the timer
      is a lower bound on the reassembly waiting time.  This is because
      the waiting time will be increased if the Time to Live in the
      arriving fragment is greater than the current timer value but will
      not be decreased if it is less.  The maximum this timer value
      could reach is the maximum time to live (approximately 4.25
      minutes).  The current recommendation for the initial timer
      setting is 15 seconds.  This may be changed as experience with


                                                               [Page 27]


                                                          September 1981
Internet Protocol
Specification



      this protocol accumulates.  Note that the choice of this parameter
      value is related to the buffer capacity available and the data
      rate of the transmission medium; that is, data rate times timer
      value equals buffer size (e.g., 10Kb/s X 15s = 150Kb).

      Notation:

        FO    -  Fragment Offset
        IHL   -  Internet Header Length
        MF    -  More Fragments flag
        TTL   -  Time To Live
        NFB   -  Number of Fragment Blocks
        TL    -  Total Length
        TDL   -  Total Data Length
        BUFID -  Buffer Identifier
        RCVBT -  Fragment Received Bit Table
        TLB   -  Timer Lower Bound

      Procedure:

        (1)  BUFID <- source|destination|protocol|identification;
        (2)  IF FO = 0 AND MF = 0
        (3)     THEN IF buffer with BUFID is allocated
        (4)             THEN flush all reassembly for this BUFID;
        (5)          Submit datagram to next step; DONE.
        (6)     ELSE IF no buffer with BUFID is allocated
        (7)             THEN allocate reassembly resources
                             with BUFID;
                             TIMER <- TLB; TDL <- 0;
        (8)          put data from fragment into data buffer with
                     BUFID from octet FO*8 to
                                         octet (TL-(IHL*4))+FO*8;
        (9)          set RCVBT bits from FO
                                        to FO+((TL-(IHL*4)+7)/8);
        (10)         IF MF = 0 THEN TDL <- TL-(IHL*4)+(FO*8)
        (11)         IF FO = 0 THEN put header in header buffer
        (12)         IF TDL # 0
        (13)          AND all RCVBT bits from 0
                                             to (TDL+7)/8 are set
        (14)            THEN TL <- TDL+(IHL*4)
        (15)                 Submit datagram to next step;
        (16)                 free all reassembly resources
                             for this BUFID; DONE.
        (17)         TIMER <- MAX(TIMER,TTL);
        (18)         give up until next fragment or timer expires;
        (19) timer expires: flush all reassembly with this BUFID; DONE.

      In the case that two or more fragments contain the same data


[Page 28]                                                               


September 1981                                                          
                                                       Internet Protocol
                                                           Specification



      either identically or through a partial overlap, this procedure
      will use the more recently arrived copy in the data buffer and
      datagram delivered.

  Identification

    The choice of the Identifier for a datagram is based on the need to
    provide a way to uniquely identify the fragments of a particular
    datagram.  The protocol module assembling fragments judges fragments
    to belong to the same datagram if they have the same source,
    destination, protocol, and Identifier.  Thus, the sender must choose
    the Identifier to be unique for this source, destination pair and
    protocol for the time the datagram (or any fragment of it) could be
    alive in the internet.

    It seems then that a sending protocol module needs to keep a table
    of Identifiers, one entry for each destination it has communicated
    with in the last maximum packet lifetime for the internet.

    However, since the Identifier field allows 65,536 different values,
    some host may be able to simply use unique identifiers independent
    of destination.

    It is appropriate for some higher level protocols to choose the
    identifier. For example, TCP protocol modules may retransmit an
    identical TCP segment, and the probability for correct reception
    would be enhanced if the retransmission carried th