summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1764.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
committerThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
commit4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch)
treee3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc1764.txt
parentea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff)
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1764.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1764.txt283
1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1764.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1764.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f949f36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1764.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group S. Senum
+Request for Comments: 1764 DigiBoard
+Category: Standards Track March 1995
+
+
+ The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+ Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+ improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+ Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+ and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+ The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for
+ transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links. PPP
+ defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and proposes a family of
+ Network Control Protocols for establishing and configuring different
+ network-layer protocols.
+
+ This document defines the Network Control Protocol for establishing
+ and configuring the Xerox Network Systems (XNS) Internet Datagram
+ Protocol (IDP) over PPP.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction .......................................... 2
+ 1.1 Specification of Requirements ................... 2
+ 1.2 Terminology ..................................... 3
+ 2. A PPP Network Control Protocol for XNS IDP ............ 3
+ 2.1 Sending XNS IDP Datagrams ....................... 4
+ SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 5
+ REFERENCES ................................................... 5
+ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................... 5
+ CHAIR'S ADDRESS .............................................. 5
+ AUTHOR'S ADDRESS ............................................. 5
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Senum [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1764 PPP XNSCP March 1995
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ PPP has three main components:
+
+ 1. A method for encapsulating multi-protocol datagrams.
+
+ 2. A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring,
+ and testing the data-link connection.
+
+ 3. A family of Network Control Protocols for establishing and
+ configuring different network-layer protocols.
+
+ In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, each
+ end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to configure and test
+ the data link. After the link has been established and optional
+ facilities have been negotiated as needed by the LCP, PPP must send
+ XNSCP packets to choose and configure the XNS IDP network-layer
+ protocol. Once XNSCP has reached the Opened state, XNS IDP datagrams
+ can be sent over the link.
+
+ The link will remain configured for communications until explicit LCP
+ or XNSCP packets close the link down, or until some external event
+ occurs (an inactivity timer expires or network administrator
+ intervention).
+
+1.1. Specification of Requirements
+
+ In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
+ of the specification. These words are often capitalized.
+
+ MUST This word, or the adjective "required", means that the
+ definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
+
+ MUST NOT This phrase means that the definition is an absolute
+ prohibition of the specification.
+
+ SHOULD This word, or the adjective "recommended", means that there
+ may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
+ ignore this item, but the full implications must be
+ understood and carefully weighed before choosing a
+ different course.
+
+ MAY This word, or the adjective "optional", means that this
+ item is one of an allowed set of alternatives. An
+ implementation which does not include this option MUST be
+ prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
+ does include the option.
+
+
+
+
+Senum [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1764 PPP XNSCP March 1995
+
+
+1.2. Terminology
+
+ This document frequently uses the following terms:
+
+ datagram The unit of transmission in the network layer (such as IP).
+ A datagram may be encapsulated in one or more packets
+ passed to the data link layer.
+
+ frame The unit of transmission at the data link layer. A frame
+ may include a header and/or a trailer, along with some
+ number of units of data.
+
+ packet The basic unit of encapsulation, which is passed across the
+ interface between the network layer and the data link
+ layer. A packet is usually mapped to a frame; the
+ exceptions are when data link layer fragmentation is being
+ performed, or when multiple packets are incorporated into a
+ single frame.
+
+ peer The other end of the point-to-point link.
+
+ silently discard
+ This means the implementation discards the packet without
+ further processing. The implementation SHOULD provide the
+ capability of logging the error, including the contents of
+ the silently discarded packet, and SHOULD record the event
+ in a statistics counter.
+
+2. A PPP Network Control Protocol for XNS IDP
+
+ The XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP) is responsible for configuring,
+ enabling, and disabling the XNS IDP protocol modules on both ends of
+ the point-to-point link. XNSCP uses the same packet exchange
+ mechanism as the Link Control Protocol (LCP). XNSCP packets may not
+ be exchanged until PPP has reached the Network-Layer Protocol phase.
+ XNSCP packets received before this phase is reached should be
+ silently discarded.
+
+ The XNS IDP Control Protocol is exactly the same as the Link Control
+ Protocol [1] with the following exceptions:
+
+ Frame Modifications
+
+ The packet may utilize any modifications to the basic frame format
+ which have been negotiated during the Link Establishment phase.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Senum [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1764 PPP XNSCP March 1995
+
+
+ Data Link Layer Protocol Field
+
+ Exactly one XNSCP packet is encapsulated in the Information field
+ of a PPP Data Link Layer frame, where the PPP Protocol field
+ indicates type hex 8025 (XNS IDP Control Protocol).
+
+ Code field
+
+ Only Codes 1 through 7 (Configure-Request, Configure-Ack,
+ Configure-Nak, Configure-Reject, Terminate-Request, Terminate-Ack
+ and Code-Reject) are used. Other Codes should be treated as
+ unrecognized and should result in Code-Rejects.
+
+ Timeouts
+
+ XNSCP packets may not be exchanged until PPP has reached the
+ Network-Layer Protocol phase. An implementation should be
+ prepared to wait for Authentication and Link Quality Determination
+ to finish before timing out waiting for a Configure-Ack or other
+ response. It is suggested that an implementation give up only
+ after user intervention or a configurable amount of time.
+
+ Configuration Option Types
+
+ XNSCP has no Configuration Options.
+
+2.1. Sending XNS IDP Datagrams
+
+ Before any XNS IDP packets may be communicated, PPP must reach the
+ Network-Layer Protocol phase, and the XNS IDP Control Protocol must
+ reach the Opened state.
+
+ Exactly one XNS IDP packet is encapsulated in the Information field
+ of a PPP Data Link Layer frame where the Protocol field indicates
+ type hex 0025 (XNS IDP datagram).
+
+ The maximum length of a XNS IDP datagram transmitted over a PPP link
+ is the same as the maximum length of the Information field of a PPP
+ data link layer frame. Since there is no standard method for
+ fragmenting and reassembling XNS IDP datagrams, PPP links supporting
+ XNS IDP MUST allow at least 576 octets in the information field of a
+ data link layer frame.
+
+ The format of the Information field itself is the same as that
+ defined in [2].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Senum [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1764 PPP XNSCP March 1995
+
+
+Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+References
+
+ [1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC
+ 1661, Daydreamer, July 1994.
+
+ [2] Xerox, "Internet Transport Protocols", January 1991, Order No.
+ XNSS 029101.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+ Some of the text in this document is taken from previous documents
+ produced by the Point-to-Point Protocol Working Group of the Internet
+ Engineering Task Force (IETF).
+
+ In particular, Bill Simpson provided the boiler-plate used to create
+ this document.
+
+Chair's Address
+
+ The working group can be contacted via the current chair:
+
+ Fred Baker
+ Cisco Systems
+ 519 Lado Drive
+ Santa Barbara, California 93111
+
+ Phone: (805) 681-0115
+ EMail: fred@cisco.com
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Questions about this memo can also be directed to:
+
+ Steven J. Senum
+ DigiBoard
+ 6400 Flying Cloud Drive
+ Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
+
+ Phone: (612) 943-9020
+ EMail: sjs@digibd.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Senum [Page 5]
+