📄 rfc991.txt
字号:
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 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.EDUReynolds & Postel [Page 10] RFC 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet Protocols Exterior Gateway Protocol ------------------------------------ (EGP) STATUS: Recommended for Gateways SPECIFICATION: RFC 888, RFC 904 (in DPH), RFC 975 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@ISI.EDU 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.COMReynolds & Postel [Page 11] RFC 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet Protocols 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 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 ProtocolReynolds & Postel [Page 12] RFC 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet Protocols 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 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.COMReynolds & Postel [Page 13] RFC 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet Protocols 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 DARPA community, they may be interesting to a number of researchers and implementors. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol CONTACT: Trudy@ACC.ARPAReynolds & Postel [Page 14] RFC 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet ProtocolsAPPLICATION 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.EDUReynolds & Postel [Page 15] RFC 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet Protocols 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 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet Protocols 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 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 (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.Reynolds & Postel [Page 17] RFC 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet Protocols 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: DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDUReynolds & Postel [Page 18] RFC 991 November 1986Official ARPA-Internet Protocols 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⌨️ 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 + -