From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100
Subject: doc: Add RFC documents

---
 doc/rfc/rfc305.txt | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc305.txt

(limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc305.txt')

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc305.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc305.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d00de87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc305.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                            Ralph Alter
+RFC #305                                         BBN
+NIC #9078                                        23 February 1972
+
+
+                          UNKNOWN HOST NUMBERS
+                          --------------------
+
+   In response to a recent minor flurry of confusion, it seems worth
+   announcing publicly the fact that new IMPs are tested (almost
+   always) on the ARPA Net here at BBN before delivery to the intended
+   site.  Accordingly, sites should not be surprised to receive RFCs
+   or at least RSTs from IMPs or Hosts they thought didn't exist, or
+   at least did not exist yet.
+
+   Occasionally, IMPs of some given configuration are tested in a
+   mode where they announce their IMP number as different from what
+   it will be when finally installed.  A variety of reasons may create
+   such a situation.  The latest such occurrence is that a TIP, to be
+   installed shortly at ETAC with IMP number 20 (replacing the 316
+   IMP now at ETAC which is number 20) was recently tested here with
+   McClellan's IMP number (22).  (It couldn't be tested with its own
+   number since the 316 IMP currently at ETAC is using that number.)
+   The result was RSTs from the TIP (Host 3) at IMP 22 - which is
+   network address 150 (226 octal or 96 hex).
+
+   One site asked if their Host tables needed updating.  The answer
+   is _NO_.  We fully expect IMPs tested under these circumstances to be
+   ignored or CLS'd by some Hosts.  We suggest that Host tables (where
+   they are thought to be necessary) be modified only in response to
+   official notification from BBN via either an RFC or an update to
+   Appendix A of BBN Report #1822.
+
+
+   RA/jm
+
+       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+       [ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the   ]
+       [ direction of Alex McKenzie.                   12/96   ]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 1]
+
-- 
cgit v1.2.3