summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc895.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc895.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc895.txt171
1 files changed, 171 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc895.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc895.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2a82319
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc895.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+
+
+Network Working Group Jon Postel
+Request for Comments: 895 ISI
+ April 1984
+
+ A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
+ over Experimental Ethernet Networks
+
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This RFC specifies a standard method of encapsulating Internet
+ Protocol (IP) [1] datagrams on an Experimental Ethernet [2]. This
+ RFC specifies a standard protocol for the ARPA Internet community.
+
+Introduction
+
+ This memo applies to the Experimental Ethernet (3-megabit/second,
+ 8-bit addresses). The procedure for transmission of IP datagrams on
+ the Ethernet (10-megabit/second, 48-bit addresses) is described in
+ [3].
+
+Frame Format
+
+ IP datagrams are transmitted in standard Experimental Ethernet
+ frames. The type field of the Ethernet frame must contain the value
+ 513 (1001 octal). The data field contains the IP header followed
+ immediately by the IP data.
+
+ If necessary, the data field should be padded to meet the
+ Experimental Ethernet minimum frame size. This padding is not part
+ of the IP packet and is not included in the total length field of the
+ IP header.
+
+ The maximum length of an IP datagram sent over an Experimental
+ Ethernet is 1536 octets. Implementations are encouraged to support
+ full-length packets. Gateway implementations MUST be prepared to
+ accept full-length packets and fragment them if necessary. If a
+ system cannot receive full-length packets, it should take steps to
+ discourage others from sending them, such as using the TCP Maximum
+ Segment Size option [4].
+
+ Note: Datagrams on the Ethernet may be longer than the general
+ Internet default maximum packet size of 576 octets. Hosts connected
+ to an Ethernet should keep this in mind when sending datagrams to
+ hosts not on the same Ethernet. It may be appropriate to send
+ smaller datagrams to avoid unnecessary fragmentation at intermediate
+ gateways. Please see [4] for further information on this point.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel [Page 1]
+
+
+
+RFC 895 April 1984
+
+
+Address Mappings
+
+ The mapping between 32-bit Internet addresses to 8-bit Experimental
+ Ethernet addresses can be done several ways.
+
+ The easiest thing to do is to use the last eight bits of host number
+ part of the Internet address as the host's address on the
+ Experimental Ethernet. This is the recommended approach.
+
+ Broadcast Address
+
+ The broadcast Internet address (the address on that network with a
+ host part of all binary ones) should be mapped to the broadcast
+ Experimental Ethernet address (address zero).
+
+Trailer Formats
+
+ Some versions of Unix 4.2bsd use a different encapsulation method in
+ order to get better network performance with the VAX virtual memory
+ architecture. Consenting systems on the same Ethernet may use this
+ format between themselves.
+
+ No host is required to implement it, and no datagrams in this format
+ should be sent to any host unless the sender has positive knowledge
+ that the recipient will be able to interpret them. Details of the
+ trailer encapsulation may be found in [6].
+
+ (Note: At the present time Unix 4.2bsd will either always use
+ trailers or never use them (per interface), depending on a boot-time
+ option. This is expected to be changed in the future. Unix 4.2bsd
+ also uses a non-standard Internet broadcast address with a host part
+ of all zeroes, this will also be changed in the future.)
+
+Byte Order
+
+ As described in Appendix B of the Internet Protocol
+ specification [1], the IP datagram is transmitted over the Ethernet
+ as a series of 8-bit bytes.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel [Page 2]
+
+
+
+RFC 895 April 1984
+
+
+References
+
+ [1] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", RFC-791, USC/Information
+ Sciences Institute, September 1981.
+
+ [2] Metcalfe, R. and D. Boggs, "Ethernet: Distributed Packet
+ Switching for Local Computer Networks", Communications of the ACM,
+ V.19, N.7, pp 395-402, July 1976.
+
+ [3] Hornig, C., "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
+ over Ethernet Networks", RFC-894, Symbolics Cambridge Research
+ Center, April 1984.
+
+ [4] Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size Option and Related
+ Topics", RFC-879, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1983.
+
+ [5] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol", RFC-826,
+ Symbolics Cambridge Research Center, November 1982.
+
+ [6] Leffler, S., and M. Karels, "Trailer Encapsulations", RFC-893,
+ University of California at Berkeley, April 1984.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel [Page 3]
+