blob: 7ade158f89936cfd5a2ae533068494a44eb99489 (
plain) (
blame)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
|
Network Working Group 11 June 1971
Request for Comments: 175 E. Harslem - Rand
NIC 7074 J. Heafner - Rand
Comments on "Socket Conventions Reconsidered"
---------------------------------------------
We agree with the conclusions reached by Abhay, Bob, and Joel in
RFC #167, "Socket Conventions Reconsidered," (see RFC #129, scheme #4)
-- especially the necessity for a major NCP overhaul.
Our main departure in thinking from RFC #167 concerns the socket
length. (See RFC #164, page 21.) Since there is an apparently serious
TIP storage consideration, Rand- assigned sockets will have the
high-order 16 bits zero.
For the particular programs (current and pending) that Rand must
access, repeatability of socket name (RFC #167, page 3) is not
necessary for the user process and also not necessary for the server
process except for initial contact (ICP) sockets.
Our current use of socket names is diagrammed below.
O 15 16 23 24 30 31
---------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
^ ^ ^ ^
|_ zero | | |_ gender
| |
| |_ zero for initial
| contact, otherwise
| dynamically assigned
| by 3rd level user
| program
|_ administratively assigned (fixed
and associated with programs)
(NOTE: This scheme corresponds exactly with both UCSB and UCLA/CCN
conventions).
[ 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]
^L
|
