From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc38.txt | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc38.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc38.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc38.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc38.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e9e0af6 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc38.txt @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group Stephen M. Wolfe +Request for Comments: 38 UCLA CCN + 20 March 1970 + + Comments on Network Protocol + from NWG/RFC #36 + + The proposed protocol does not allow for the possible multiplexing of + connections over links. + + Generally, this presents no problem, but it might cause loading + restrictions in the future. Two cases where routing multiple + connections over the same link are apparent: + + a) Where a user has several high speed connections, such as + between processes that transmit files over the network. + Assigning these connections to the same link limits the + percentage of network resources that may be used by that + user. This becomes particularly important when several + store-and-forward IMP's are used by the network to effect + the communication. + b) When two hosts each have their own independent network and + desire to allow access to the other hosts's network over + the ARPA net, a shortage of links may develop. Again, the + assignment of several connections to the same link could + help solve the problem. + + The following changes in the protocol would make possible the future + use of multiplexed links. It is not necessary to add the + multiplexing, itself, to the protocol at this time. + + a) The END and RDY must specify relevant sockets in addition to + the link number. Only the local socket name need be + supplied. + b) Problems arise with the RSM and SPD commands. Should they + refer to an entire link, or just to a given connection? + Since there is a proposal to modify the RFNM to accommodate + these commands, it might be better to add another set of + commands to block and unblock a connection, but I am not + convinced that that is the best solution. + c) The destintation socket must be added to the header of each + message on the data link. Presumably this would consist of + 32 bits immediately after the header and before the marking. + + [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ] + [ into the online RFC archives by Karl Reinsch 1/97 ] + + + + + + [Page 1] + -- cgit v1.2.3