⭐ 欢迎来到虫虫下载站! | 📦 资源下载 📁 资源专辑 ℹ️ 关于我们
⭐ 虫虫下载站

📄 rfc878.txt

📁 RFC 相关的技术文档
💻 TXT
📖 第 1 页 / 共 5 页
字号:
                           1822L Address Format                                Figure 2.3                                   - 6 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878     This format allows 1822L hosts to directly address hosts 0-63  at     IMPs  1-255  (IMP  0 does not exist).  Note that the highest host     numbers are reserved  for  addressing  the  IMP's  internal  fake     hosts.   At  this  writing, the IMP has seven fake hosts, so host     numbers 57-63 address the IMP fake hosts, while host numbers 0-56     address  real  hosts  external  to the IMP.  As the number of IMP     fake hosts changes, this boundary point will also change.     2.2  Name Translations     There are a number of factors that determine how an 1822L name is     translated  by  the  IMP  into a physical address on the network.     These factors include which translations are legal; in what order     different  translations  for  the  same name should be attempted;     which  legal  translations  shouldn't  be  attempted  because   a     particular  host  port  is down; and the interoperability between     1822  and  1822L  hosts.   These  issues  are  discussed  in  the     following sections.     2.2.1  Authorization and Effectiveness     Every host on a C/30 IMP, regardless of whether it is  using  the     1822  or  1822L  protocol  to access the network, can have one or     more 1822L names (logical addresses).  Hosts using 1822L can then                                   - 7 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878     use  these  names to address the hosts in the network independent     of their  physical  locations.   Because  of  the  implementation     constraints mentioned in the introduction, hosts on non-C/30 IMPs     cannot be assigned 1822L names.  To circumvent this  restriction,     however,  1822L  hosts can also use 1822L addresses to access all     of the other hosts.     At this point, several questions  arise:   How  are  these  names     assigned,  how  do  they  become  known  to  the  IMPs  (so  that     translations to physical addresses can be made), and how  do  the     IMPs know which host is currently using a shared port?  To answer     each question in order:     Names are assigned by a central network administrator.  When each     name  is  created, it is assigned to a host (or a group of hosts)     at one or more specific host ports.  The host(s) are  allowed  to     reside at those specific host ports, and nowhere else.  If a host     moves, it will keep the same name, but the administrator  has  to     update  the  central  database  to  reflect  the  new  host port.     Changes to this database are  distributed  to  the  IMPs  by  the     Network  Operations  Center  (NOC).  For a while, the host may be     allowed to reside at either of (or both) the new and  old  ports.     Once  the  correspondence  between  a  name and one or more hosts     ports where it  may  be  used  has  been  made  official  by  the     administrator,   that  name  is  said  to  be  authorized.  1822L                                   - 8 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878     addresses, which actually  refer  to  physical  host  ports,  are     always authorized in this sense.     Once a host has been assigned one or more names, it  has  to  let     the  IMPs  know  where it is and what name(s) it is using.  There     are two cases to consider, one for 1822L hosts  and  another  for     1822  hosts.   The following discussion only pertains to hosts on     C/30 IMPs.     When an IMP sees an 1822L host come up on a host  port,  the  IMP     has  no way of knowing which host has just come up (several hosts     may share the same port, or one host may prefer to  be  known  by     different  names  at different times).  This requires the host to     declare itself to the IMP before it can actually send and receive     messages.   This  function  is  performed  by  a  new host-to-IMP     message, the Name Declaration  Message  (NDM),  which  lists  the     names  that  the  host would like to be known by.  The IMP checks     its tables to see if each of the names is authorized,  and  sends     an  NDM  Reply  to  the  host  saying  which  names were actually     authorized and can now be used for sending and receiving messages     (i.e.,  which  names  are  effective). A host can also use an NDM     message to change its list of effective names (it can add to  and     delete  from  the  list) at any time.  The only constraint on the     host is that any names it wishes to use can become effective only     if they are authorized.                                   - 9 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878     In the second case, if a host comes up on a C/30  IMP  using  the     1822 protocol, the IMP automatically makes the first name the IMP     finds in its tables  for  that  host  become  effective  when  it     receives the first 1822 NOP from the host.  Thus, even though the     host is using the 1822 protocol, it can  still  receive  messages     from  1822L  hosts  via  its  1822L name.  Of course, it can also     receive messages from an 1822L host  via  its  1822L  address  as     well.    (Remember,  the  distinction  between  1822L  names  and     addresses is that the addresses correspond to physical  locations     on   the   network,   while   the   names  are  strictly  logical     identifiers).  The IMPs translate between the  different  leaders     and send the proper leader in each case (see section 2.2.4).     The third question above has by now already been answered.   When     an  1822L  host comes up, it uses the NDM message to tell the IMP     which host it is (which names it is known by).  Even if this is a     shared port, the IMP knows which host is currently connected.     Whenever a host goes down, its names  automatically  become  non-     effective.   When it comes back up, it has to make them effective     again.                                  - 10 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878     2.2.2  Translation Policies     Several hosts can share the same 1822L name.  If more than one of     these  hosts  is  up  at the same time, any messages sent to that     1822L name will be delivered to just one  of  the  hosts  sharing     that  name,  and  a RFNM will be returned as usual.  However, the     sending host will  not  receive  any  indication  of  which  host     received  the  message,  and subsequent messages to that name are     not guaranteed to be sent to the  same  host.   Typically,  hosts     providing  exactly  the  same  service could share the same 1822L     name in this manner.     Similarly, when a host is multi-homed, the same  1822L  name  may     refer  to  more  than  one  host  port (all connected to the same     host).  If the host is up on only one of those ports,  that  port     will be used for all messages addressed to the host.  However, if     the host were up on more than one  port,  the  message  would  be     delivered  over  just  one  of  those ports, and the subnet would     choose which port to use.  This port selection could change  from     message  to  message.   If  a  host wanted to insure that certain     messages were delivered to it on specific ports,  these  messages     could  use  either  the  port's 1822L address or a specific 1822L     name that referred to that port alone.                                  - 11 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878     Three different address selection policies are available for  the     name mapping process.  When translated, each name uses one of the     three policies  (the  policy  is  pre-determined  on  a  per-name     basis).  The three policies are:     o  Attempt each translation in the order in  which  the  physical        addresses  are listed in the IMP's translation tables, to find        the first reachable  physical  host  address.   This  list  is        always  searched  from the top whenever an uncontrolled packet        is to be sent or a new virtual circuit connection  has  to  be        created  (see  section  2.5).   This is the most commonly used        policy.     o  Selection of the closest  physical  address,  which  uses  the        IMP's   routing   tables   to  find  the  translation  to  the        destination  IMP  with  the  least  delay  path  whenever   an        uncontrolled  packet  is  to  be sent or a new virtual circuit        connection has to be created.     o  Use load leveling. This is similar to the second  policy,  but        differs  in  that  searching  the  address  list  for  a valid        translation starts at the address following where the previous        translation search ended whenever an uncontrolled packet is to        be sent or a new virtual circuit connection has to be created.        This  attempts to spread out the load from any one IMP's hosts                                  - 12 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878        to the various host ports associated with a  particular  name.        Note  that this is NOT network-wide load leveling, which would        require a distributed algorithm and tables.     2.2.3  Reporting Destination Host Downs     As was explained in report 1822, and  as  will  be  discussed  in     greater detail in section 2.5, whenever regular messages are sent     by a host, the IMP opens a virtual  circuit  connection  to  each     destination  host  from  the source host.  A connection will stay     open at least as long as there are  any  outstanding  (un-RFNMed)     messages  using it and both the source and destination hosts stay     up.     However, the destination host may go down for some reason  during     the  lifetime of a connection.  If the host goes down while there     are no outstanding messages  to  it  in  the  network,  then  the     connection  is  closed  and  no  other  action is taken until the     source host submits the next message for  that  destination.   At     that time, ONE of the following events will occur:     A1.  If 1822 or an 1822L address is being  used  to  specify  the          destination host, then the source host will receive a type 7          (Destination Host Dead) message from the IMP.     A2.  If an 1822L name is being used to  specify  the  destination                                  - 13 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878          host,  and  the  name maps to only one authorized host port,          then a type 7 message will also be sent to the source host.     A3.  If an 1822L name is being used to  specify  the  destination          host,  and  the  name  maps to more than one authorized host          port, then the IMP attempts to open a connection to  another          authorized  and  effective  host  port for that name.  If no          such connection can be made, the host will receive a type 15          (1822L  Name  or  Address  Error),  subtype  5 (no effective          translations) message (see section 3.2).  Note that a type 7          message  cannot be returned to the source host, since type 7          messages refer to a particular destination  host  port,  and          the name maps to more than one destination port.     Things get a bit more complicated if there  are  any  outstanding     messages  on  the connection when the destination host goes down.     The connection will be closed, and  one  of  the  following  will     occur:     B1.  If 1822 or an 1822L address is being  used  to  specify  the          destination host, then the source host will receive a type 7          message for each outstanding message.     B2.  If an 1822L name is being used to  specify  the  destination          host, then the source host will receive a type 9 (Incomplete  |          Transmission), subtype 6  (message  lost  due  to  logically  |          addressed  host  going  down)  message  for each outstanding  |                                  - 14 -     1822L Host Access Protocol                          December 1983     RFC 878          message.  The next time  the  source  host  submits  another          message   for  that  same  destination  name,  the  previous          algorithm will be used (either step A2 or step A3).     The above two algorithms also apply when a  host  stays  up,  but     declares  the  destination  name for an existing connection to no     longer be effective.  In this case, however, the type 7  messages     above will be replaced by type 15, subtype 3 (name not effective)     messages.     Section 2.3 discusses how destination host downs are handled  for     uncontrolled packets.     2.2.4  1822L and 1822 Interoperability     As  has  been  previously  stated,  1822  and  1822L  hosts   can

⌨️ 快捷键说明

复制代码 Ctrl + C
搜索代码 Ctrl + F
全屏模式 F11
切换主题 Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键 ?
增大字号 Ctrl + =
减小字号 Ctrl + -