diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc394.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc394.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc394.txt | 165 |
1 files changed, 165 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc394.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc394.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0556805 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc394.txt @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group John M. McQuillan +Request for Comments #394 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. +NIC 11856 27 September 1972 +Categories: B.1 +Updates: RFC #381 +Obsoletes: + + TWO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE IMP-HOST PROTOCOL +--------------------------------------------- + This note describes two changes to the IMP-Host communication +protocol described in BBN Report 1822 and revised in RFC 381. The +first deals with the IMP-to-Host interface and the 30-second timeout +mechanism on each IMP transmission to the Host. The second deals with +the Host-to-IMP interface and proposes a new timeout mechanism. These +changes are independent; in statement and in implementation. We +invite comments on each proposal. If no adverse comments are +received, they will be installed in the network on Tuesday, October 10 +(if serious adverse comments are received, action will be delayed +until early November). + +1) Declaring an unresponsive Host as dead to the network + ----------------------------------------------------- + Currently, a Host is given 30 seconds to accept each packet of a +regular message and is also given 30 seconds to accept non- regular +messages. If the Host is unresponsive for this period of time, the +IMP takes the following actions: + + a) All messages held for the Host are discarded. + + b) The source Host for each discarded messages is sent + a type 9, subtype 0 message (Incomplete Transmission - + Destination Host Tardy). + + c) The IMP ready line is dropped and raised again. + + d) The Host is sent 3 type 4 messages (NOP). + + e) The Host is sent a type 10 message (IMP-Host Interface + Reset). + + We propose that in addition the IMP declare the Host dead to the +network. Upon receipt of the next bit from the Host, the IMP will +declare the Host alive and begin the 30-second delay while the +information that the Host is now alive is propagated throughout the +network. + + + + + + + [Page 1] + +RFC #394 John M. McQuillan + + This change is an attempt to alleviate some problems that are +caused by Hosts whose ready lines are up when they are not able to +accept bits from the IMP. Several Hosts fall into this category. +There are some Hosts whose ready lines are wired to be on all the +time. It is annoying, in terminal use and in running survey programs, +to have to wait for 30 seconds to find out that a Host is not +responding. Other Hosts sometimes go into "break- point mode" for +system debugging for several minutes at a time. The NCP software is +not running, and messages accumulate in the network and are thrown +away. It seems preferable to declare such Hosts to be dead until they +send a message* to the IMP, and then any source Host attempting to +communicate can be notified at once that the destination Host is dead. + +2) Timing out Host-to-IMP messages in 15 seconds + --------------------------------------------- + + When the IMP receives a message from a Host, it must acquire +several internal resources in order to process the message. It must +assign it a message number, make an entry in an internal table, and so +on. If any of these IMP resources is not available, the IMP simply +waits until it does become available. It cannot take any more +messages from the Host, and so the interface is stopped. This +condition is usually momentary, but under unusual circumstances the +IMP may not be able to process a message it has begun to accept for +many seconds. This situation creates an especially difficult problem +for Hosts with half-duplex interfaces. If the IMP takes 30 seconds to +process a message, then the IMP-to- Host timeout outlined in 1) takes +effect, and the Host loses all messages sent to it in the last 30 +seconds. (It should be noted that the half-duplex interface may be +the cause of a deadly embrace, e.g. the reason that the IMP cannot +acquire the necessary resources to process a given message may be that +the Host in question has several messages on its queue and they are +tying up storage, message + + + + + +__________________ +*Thus a Host should send its IMP at least two NOPs (or other + messages) whenever it receives a type 10 message from its IMP. + + + + + + + + + [Page 2] + +RFC #394 John M. Mcquillan + +numbers, or table slots. The Host must accept these messages before +any more messages can be introduced into the network.) Even for Hosts +with full-duplex interfaces, occurrences of this situation might +interfere with other useful communication. + + We propose to notify the Host when the IMP cannot continue to +process a message that it has begun to accept. The IMP will try to +process the message for 15 seconds, and then will send the Host a type +9, subtype 4 message (bits 30,31,32 = 100) which will be defined as +Incomplete Transmission - Resources Unavailable. In such a case, the +IMP has not been able to send any part of the message into the +network. The IMP will take in the remainder of the message; at that +point a Host with a half-duplex interface should begin to accept +messages from the IMP, while a Host with a full-duplex interface might +attempt to transmit some other message. The Host may attempt to +retransmit the incomplete message if that is desirable. + + + + + + + + + + + + + [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ] + [ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the ] + [ direction of Alex McKenzie. 1/97 ] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + [Page 3] + |