📄 rfc1001.txt
字号:
Network Working GroupRequest for Comments: 1001 March, 1987 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP TRANSPORT: CONCEPTS AND METHODS ABSTRACTThis RFC defines a proposed standard protocol to support NetBIOSservices in a TCP/IP environment. Both local network and internetoperation are supported. Various node types are defined to accommodatelocal and internet topologies and to allow operation with or without theuse of IP broadcast.This RFC describes the NetBIOS-over-TCP protocols in a general manner,emphasizing the underlying ideas and techniques. Detailedspecifications are found in a companion RFC, "Protocol Standard For aNetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Detailed Specifications".NetBIOS Working Group [Page 1]RFC 1001 March 1987 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS1. STATUS OF THIS MEMO 62. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 63. INTRODUCTION 74. DESIGN PRINCIPLES 75. OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS 106. NetBIOS FACILITIES SUPPORTED BY THIS STANDARD 157. REQUIRED SUPPORTING SERVICE INTERFACES AND DEFINITIONS 158. RELATED PROTOCOLS AND SERVICES 169. NetBIOS SCOPE 1610. NetBIOS END-NODES 1611. NetBIOS SUPPORT SERVERS 1812. TOPOLOGIES 2013. GENERAL METHODS 2314. REPRESENTATION OF NETBIOS NAMES 2515. NetBIOS NAME SERVICE 2716. NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE 4817. NETBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE 5518. NODE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS 5819. MINIMAL CONFORMANCE 59REFERENCES 60APPENDIX A - INTEGRATION WITH INTERNET GROUP MULTICASTING 61APPENDIX B - IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS 62NetBIOS Working Group [Page 2]RFC 1001 March 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS1. STATUS OF THIS MEMO 62. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 63. INTRODUCTION 74. DESIGN PRINCIPLES 8 4.1 PRESERVE NetBIOS SERVICES 8 4.2 USE EXISTING STANDARDS 8 4.3 MINIMIZE OPTIONS 8 4.4 TOLERATE ERRORS AND DISRUPTIONS 8 4.5 DO NOT REQUIRE CENTRAL MANAGEMENT 9 4.6 ALLOW INTERNET OPERATION 9 4.7 MINIMIZE BROADCAST ACTIVITY 9 4.8 PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION ON EXISTING SYSTEMS 9 4.9 REQUIRE ONLY THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO OPERATE 9 4.10 MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY 10 4.11 MINIMIZE NEW INVENTIONS 105. OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS 10 5.1 INTERFACE TO APPLICATION PROGRAMS 10 5.2 NAME SERVICE 11 5.3 SESSION SERVICE 12 5.4 DATAGRAM SERVICE 13 5.5 MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS 14 5.6 NON-STANDARD EXTENSIONS 156. NetBIOS FACILITIES SUPPORTED BY THIS STANDARD 157. REQUIRED SUPPORTING SERVICE INTERFACES AND DEFINITIONS 158. RELATED PROTOCOLS AND SERVICES 169. NetBIOS SCOPE 1610. NetBIOS END-NODES 16 10.1 BROADCAST (B) NODES 16 10.2 POINT-TO-POINT (P) NODES 16 10.3 MIXED MODE (M) NODES 1611. NetBIOS SUPPORT SERVERS 18 11.1 NetBIOS NAME SERVER (NBNS) NODES 18 11.1.1 RELATIONSHIP OF THE NBNS TO THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM 19 11.2 NetBIOS DATAGRAM DISTRIBUTION SERVER (NBDD) NODES 19 11.3 RELATIONSHIP OF NBNS AND NBDD NODES 20 11.4 RELATIONSHIP OF NetBIOS SUPPORT SERVERS AND B NODES 2012. TOPOLOGIES 20 12.1 LOCAL 20NetBIOS Working Group [Page 3]RFC 1001 March 1987 12.1.1 B NODES ONLY 21 12.1.2 P NODES ONLY 21 12.1.3 MIXED B AND P NODES 21 12.2 INTERNET 22 12.2.1 P NODES ONLY 22 12.2.2 MIXED M AND P NODES 2313. GENERAL METHODS 23 13.1 REQUEST/RESPONSE INTERACTION STYLE 23 13.1.1 RETRANSMISSION OF REQUESTS 24 13.1.2 REQUESTS WITHOUT RESPONSES: DEMANDS 24 13.2 TRANSACTIONS 25 13.2.1 TRANSACTION ID 25 13.3 TCP AND UDP FOUNDATIONS 2514. REPRESENTATION OF NETBIOS NAMES 25 14.1 FIRST LEVEL ENCODING 26 14.2 SECOND LEVEL ENCODING 2715. NetBIOS NAME SERVICE 27 15.1 OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS NAME SERVICE 27 15.1.1 NAME REGISTRATION (CLAIM) 27 15.1.2 NAME QUERY (DISCOVERY) 28 15.1.3 NAME RELEASE 28 15.1.3.1 EXPLICIT RELEASE 28 15.1.3.2 NAME LIFETIME AND REFRESH 29 15.1.3.3 NAME CHALLENGE 29 15.1.3.4 GROUP NAME FADE-OUT 29 15.1.3.5 NAME CONFLICT 30 15.1.4 ADAPTER STATUS 31 15.1.5 END-NODE NBNS INTERACTION 31 15.1.5.1 UDP, TCP, AND TRUNCATION 31 15.1.5.2 NBNS WACK 32 15.1.5.3 NBNS REDIRECTION 32 15.1.6 SECURED VERSUS NON-SECURED NBNS 32 15.1.7 CONSISTENCY OF THE NBNS DATA BASE 32 15.1.8 NAME CACHING 34 15.2 NAME REGISTRATION TRANSACTIONS 34 15.2.1 NAME REGISTRATION BY B NODES 34 15.2.2 NAME REGISTRATION BY P NODES 35 15.2.2.1 NEW NAME, OR NEW GROUP MEMBER 35 15.2.2.2 EXISTING NAME AND OWNER IS STILL ACTIVE 36 15.2.2.3 EXISTING NAME AND OWNER IS INACTIVE 37 15.2.3 NAME REGISTRATION BY M NODES 38 15.3 NAME QUERY TRANSACTIONS 39 15.3.1 QUERY BY B NODES 39 15.3.2 QUERY BY P NODES 40 15.3.3 QUERY BY M NODES 43 15.3.4 ACQUIRE GROUP MEMBERSHIP LIST 43 15.4 NAME RELEASE TRANSACTIONS 44 15.4.1 RELEASE BY B NODES 44NetBIOS Working Group [Page 4]RFC 1001 March 1987 15.4.2 RELEASE BY P NODES 44 15.4.3 RELEASE BY M NODES 44 15.5 NAME MAINTENANCE TRANSACTIONS 45 15.5.1 NAME REFRESH 45 15.5.2 NAME CHALLENGE 46 15.5.3 CLEAR NAME CONFLICT 47 15.6 ADAPTER STATUS TRANSACTIONS 4716. NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE 48 16.1 OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE 49 16.1.1 SESSION ESTABLISHMENT PHASE OVERVIEW 49 16.1.1.1 RETRYING AFTER BEING RETARGETTED 50 16.1.1.2 SESSION ESTABLISHMENT TO A GROUP NAME 51 16.1.2 STEADY STATE PHASE OVERVIEW 51 16.1.3 SESSION TERMINATION PHASE OVERVIEW 51 16.2 SESSION ESTABLISHMENT PHASE 52 16.3 SESSION DATA TRANSFER PHASE 54 16.3.1 DATA ENCAPSULATION 54 16.3.2 SESSION KEEP-ALIVES 5417. NETBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE 55 17.1 OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE 55 17.1.1 UNICAST, MULTICAST, AND BROADCAST 55 17.1.2 FRAGMENTATION OF NetBIOS DATAGRAMS 55 17.2 NetBIOS DATAGRAMS BY B NODES 57 17.3 NetBIOS DATAGRAMS BY P AND M NODES 5818. NODE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS 5819. MINIMAL CONFORMANCE 59REFERENCES 60APPENDIX A 61INTEGRATION WITH INTERNET GROUP MULTICASTING 61 A-1. ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL REQUIRED IN B AND M NODES 61 A-2. CONSTRAINTS 61APPENDIX B 62IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS 62 B-1. IMPLEMENTATION MODELS 62 B-1.1 MODEL INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATIONS 63 B-1.2 SERVICE OPERATION FOR EACH MODEL 63 B-2. CASUAL AND RESTRICTED NetBIOS APPLICATIONS 64 B-3. TCP VERSUS SESSION KEEP-ALIVES 66 B-4. RETARGET ALGORITHMS 67 B-5. NBDD SERVICE 68 B-6. APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS 68 B-6.1 USE OF NetBIOS DATAGRAMS 68NetBIOS Working Group [Page 5]RFC 1001 March 1987 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP TRANSPORT: CONCEPTS AND METHODS1. STATUS OF THIS MEMO This RFC specifies a proposed standard for the Internet community. Since this topic is new to the Internet community, discussions and suggestions are specifically requested. Please send written comments to: Karl Auerbach Epilogue Technology Corporation P.O. Box 5432 Redwood City, CA 94063 Please send online comments to: Avnish Aggarwal Internet: mtxinu!excelan!avnish@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Usenet: ucbvax!mtxinu!excelan!avnish Distribution of this document is unlimited.2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This RFC has been developed under the auspices of the Internet Activities Board, especially the End-to-End Services Task Force. The following individuals have contributed to the development of this RFC: Avnish Aggarwal Arvind Agrawal Lorenzo Aguilar Geoffrey Arnold Karl Auerbach K. Ramesh Babu Keith Ball Amatzia Ben-Artzi Vint Cerf Richard Cherry David Crocker Steve Deering Greg Ennis Steve Holmgren Jay Israel David Kaufman Lee LaBarre James Lau Dan Lynch Gaylord Miyata David Stevens Steve Thomas Ishan Wu The system proposed by this RFC does not reflect any existing Netbios-over-TCP implementation. However, the design incorporates considerable knowledge obtained from prior implementations. Special thanks goes to the following organizations which have provided this invaluable information: CMC/Syros Excelan Sytek Ungermann-Bass
⌨️ 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 + -