⭐ 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

📄 rfc1190.txt

📁 著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.
💻 TXT
📖 第 1 页 / 共 5 页
字号:
      rates, including bursts of varying rate and duration, there is an      opportunity to provide service to more subscribers by providing      guaranteed service for the average data rate of each stream, and      reserving additional network capacity, shared among all streams,      to service the bursts.  This concept has been recognized by analog      voice network providers leading to the principle of time assigned      speech interpolation (TASI) in which only the talkspurts of a      speech conversation are transmitted, and, during silence periods,      the circuit can be used to send the talkspurts of other      conversations.  The FlowSpec is intended to assist algorithms that      perform similar kinds of functions.  We do not propose such      algorithms here, but rather expect that this will be an area for      experimentation.  To allow for experiments, and a range of ways      that application traffic might be characterized, a "DutyFactor" is      included in the FlowSpec and we expect that a "burst descriptor"      will also be needed.      The FlowSpec will need to be revised as experience is gained with      connections involving numerous participants using multiple media      across heterogeneous internetworks.  We feel a change of the      FlowSpec does not necessarily require a new version of ST, it only      requires the FlowSpec version number be updated and software to      manage the new FlowSpec to be distributed.  We further suggest      that if the change to the FlowSpec involves additional information      for improved operation, such as a burst descriptor, that it be      added to the end of the FlowSpec and that the current parameters      be maintained so that obsolete software can be used to process the      current parameters with minimum modifications.CIP Working Group                                              [Page 15]RFC 1190                Internet Stream Protocol            October 1990                      ****                      ****                     *    *     ST Agent 1     *    *       +---+                    *      *------- o ---------*    *-------+ B |                    *      *                   *    *       +---+                    *      *                    ****      +---+         *      *                     |      |   |         *      *                     |      | A +---------*      *                     o ST Agent 3      |   |         *      *                     |      +---+         *      *                     |                    *      *                    ***                    *      *                   *   *        +---+                    *      *    ST Agent 2    *     *-------+ C |                    *      *------- o --------*     *       +---+                     *    *                   *     *                      ****                    *     *                                              *     *                                 +---+        *     *       +---+                                 | E +--------*     *-------+ D |                                 +---+         *   *        +---+                                                ***         Figure 2.  Topology Used in Protocol Exchange Diagrams                      ****     ST Agent 1       ****                     * +--+---14--- o -----15--+----+--44---+---+                    *  | +-+--11---   -----16--+-+  *       | B |                    *  | | *                   * |+-+--45---+---+                    *  | | *                    *++*      +---+         *  | | *                  34 ||32      |   +----4----+--+ | *                     ||      | A +----6----+----+ *                     o ST Agent 3      |   +----5----+---+  *                     |      +---+         *   |  *                     | 33                    *   |  *       ST           *+*                    *   |  *      Agent        * | *                    *   |  *        2 -----24-+--+  *       +---+                    *   +--+--23--- o -----25-+-----+--54---+ C |                     *    *           -----26-+---+ *       +---+                      ****            -----27-+-+ | *                                              * | | *                                 +---+        * | | *       +---+                                 | E +---74---+-+ +-+--64---+ D |                                 +---+         *   *        +---+                                                ***         Figure 3.  Virtual Link Identifiers for SCMP MessagesCIP Working Group                                              [Page 16]RFC 1190                Internet Stream Protocol            October 19903.      ST Control Message Protocol Functional Description   This section contains a functional description of the ST Control   Message Protocol (SCMP); Section 4 (page 75) specifies the formats of   the control message PDUs.  We begin with a description of stream   setup.  Mechanisms used to deal with the exceptional cases are then   presented.  Complications due to options that an application or a ST   agent may select are then detailed.  Once a stream has been   established, the data transfer phase is entered; it is described.   Once the data transfer phase has been completed, the stream must be   torn down and resources released; the control messages used to   perform this function are presented.  The resources or participants   of a stream may be changed during the lifetime of the stream; the   procedures to make changes are described.  Finally, the section   concludes with a description of some ancillary functions, such as   failure detection and recovery, HID negotiation, routing, security,   etc.   To help clarify the SCMP exchanges used to setup and maintain ST   streams, we have included a series of figures in this section.  The   protocol interactions in the figures assume the topology shown in   Figure 2.  The figures, taken together,    o  Create a stream from an application at A to three peers at B,       C and D,    o  Add a peer at E,    o  Disconnect peers B and C, and    o  D drops out of the stream.   Other figures illustrate exchanges related to failure recovery.   In order to make the dispatch function within SCMP more uniform and   efficient, each end of a hop is assigned, by the agent at that end, a   Virtual Link Identifier that uniquely (within that agent) identifies   the hop and associates it with a particular stream's state   machine(s).  The identifier at the end of a link that is sending a   message is called the Sender Virtual Link Identifier (SVLId);  that   at the receiving end is called the Receiver Virtual Link Identifier   (RVLId).  Whenever one agent sends a control message for the other to   receive, the sender will place the receiver's identifier into the   RVLId field of the message and its own identifier in the SVLId field.   When a reply to the message is sent, the values in SVLId and RVLId   fields will be reversed, reflecting the fact the sender and receiver   roles are reversed.  VLIds with values zero through three are   received and should not be assigned in response to CONNECT messages.   Figure 3 shows the hops that will be used in the examples and   summarizes the VLIds that will be assigned to them.CIP Working Group                                              [Page 17]RFC 1190                Internet Stream Protocol            October 1990   Similarly, Figure 4 summarizes the HIDs that will eventually be   negotiated as the stream is created.                      ****     ST Agent 1       ****                     *  +>+--1200-> o -------->+--->+-3600->+---+                    *   ^  *                   *    *       | B |                    *   |  *                   * +->+-6000->+---+                    *   |  *                    *+**      +---+         *   |  *                     ^      |   +-------->+-->+  *                     |      | A |         *      *                     o St Agent 3      |   +-------->+-->+  *                     ^      +---+         *   |  *                     | 4801                    *   |  *                    *+*                    *   V  *   ST Agent 2      * ^ *        +---+                     *  +>+--2400-> o ------->+->+->+-4800->+ C |                      ****                    *  |  * 4801  +---+                                              *  |  *                                 +---+        *  V  *       +---+                                 | E +<-4800--+<-+->+-4800->+ D |                                 +---+         *   *  4801  +---+                                                ***             Figure 4.  HIDs Assigned for ST User Packets   Some of the diagrams that follow form a progression.  For example,   the steps required initially to establish a connection are spread   across five figures.  Within a progression, the actions on the first   diagram are numbered 1.1, 1.2, etc.;  within the second diagram they   are numbered 2.1, 2.2, etc.  Points where control leaves one diagram   to enter another are identified with a continuation arrow "-->>", and   are continued with "[a.b] >>-->" in the other diagram.  The number in   brackets shows the label where control left the earlier diagram.  The   reception of simple acknowledgments, e.g., ACKs, in one figure from   another is omitted for clarity.   3.1.       Stream Setup      This section presents a description of stream setup assuming that      everything succeeds -- HIDs are approved, any required resources      are available, and the routing is correct.      3.1.1.        Initial Setup at the Origin         As described in Section 2.3 (page 11), the application has         collected the information necessary to determine theCIP Working Group                                              [Page 18]RFC 1190                Internet Stream Protocol            October 1990         participants in the communication before passing it to the host         ST agent at the origin.  The host ST agent will take this         information, allocate a Name for the stream (see Section         4.2.2.8 (page 87)), and create a stream.      3.1.2.        Invoking the Routing Function         An ST agent that is setting up a stream invokes a routing         function to find a path to reach each of the targets specified         in the TargetList.  This is similar to the routing decision in         IP.  However, in this case the route is to a multitude of         targets rather than to a single destination.         The set of next-hops that an ST agent would select is not         necessarily the same as the set of next hops that IP would         select given a number of independent IP datagrams to the same         destinations.  The routing algorithm may attempt to optimize         parameters other than the number of hops that the packets will         take, such as delay, local network bandwidth consumption, or         total internet bandwidth consumption.         The result of the routing function is a set of next-hop ST         agents and the parameters of the intervening network(s).  The         latter permit the ST agent to determine whether the selected         network has the resources necessary to support the level of         service requested in the FlowSpec.      3.1.3.        Reserving Resources         The intent of ST is to provide a guaranteed level of service by         reserving internet resources for a stream during a setup phase         rather than on a per packet basis.  The relevant resources are         not only the forwarding information maintained by the ST         agents, but also packet switch processor bandwidth and buffer         space, and network bandwidth and multicast group identifiers.         Reservation of these resources can help to increase the         reliability and decrease the delay and delay variance with         which data packets are delivered.  The FlowSpec contains all         the information needed by the ST agent to allocate the         necessary resources.  When and how these resources are

⌨️ 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 + -