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
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
|
Network Working Group J. Postel
Request for Comments: 795 ISI
September 1981
SERVICE MAPPINGS
----------------
This memo describes the relationship between the Internet
Protocol (IP) [1] Type of Service and the service parameters of specific
networks.
The IP Type of Service has the following fields:
Bits 0-2: Precedence.
Bit 3: 0 = Normal Delay, 1 = Low Delay.
Bits 4: 0 = Normal Throughput, 1 = High Throughput.
Bits 5: 0 = Normal Relibility, 1 = High Relibility.
Bit 6-7: Reserved for Future Use.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | | | |
| PRECEDENCE | D | T | R | 0 | 0 |
| | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
111 - Network Control
110 - Internetwork Control
101 - CRITIC/ECP
100 - Flash Override
011 - Flash
010 - Immediate
001 - Priority
000 - Routine
The individual networks listed here have very different and specific
service choices.
Postel [Page 1]
^L
September 1981
RFC 795 Service Mappings
AUTODIN II
The service choices are in two parts: Traffic Acceptance Catagories,
and Application Type. The Traffic Acceptance Catagories can be
mapped into and out of the IP TOS precedence reasonably directly.
The Application types can be mapped into the remaining IP TOS fields
as follows.
TA DELAY THROUGHPUT RELIABILITY
--- ----- ---------- -----------
I/A 1 0 0
Q/R 0 0 0
B1 0 1 0
B2 0 1 1
DTR TA
--- ---
000 Q/R
001 Q/R
010 B1
011 B2
100 I/A
101 I/A
110 I/A
111 error
Postel [Page 2]
^L
September 1981
RFC 795 Service Mappings
ARPANET
The service choices are in quite limited. There is one priority bit
that can be mapped to the high order bit of the IP TOS precedence.
The other choices are to use the regular ("Type 0") messages vs. the
uncontrolled ("Type 3") messages, or to use single packet vs.
multipacket messages. The mapping of ARPANET parameters into IP TOS
parameters can be as follows.
Type Size DELAY THROUGHPUT RELIABILITY
---- ---- ----- ---------- -----------
0 S 1 0 0
0 M 0 0 0
3 S 1 0 0
3 M not allowed
DTR Type Size
--- ---- ----
000 0 M
001 0 M
010 0 M
011 0 M
100 3 S
101 0 S
110 3 S
111 error
Postel [Page 3]
^L
September 1981
RFC 795 Service Mappings
PRNET
There is no priority indication. The two choices are to use the
station routing vs. point-to-point routing, or to require
acknowledgments vs. having no acknowledgments. The mapping of PRNET
parameters into IP TOS parameters can be as follows.
Routing Acks DELAY THROUGHPUT RELIABILITY
------- ---- ----- ---------- -----------
ptp no 1 0 0
ptp yes 1 0 1
station no 0 0 0
station yes 0 0 1
DTR Routing Acks
--- ------- ----
000 station no
001 station yes
010 station no
011 station yes
100 ptp no
101 ptp yes
110 ptp no
111 ptp yes
SATNET
There is no priority indication. The four choices are to use the
block vs. stream type, to select one of four delay catagories, to
select one of two holding time strategies, or to request one of three
reliability levels. The mapping of SATNET parameters into IP TOS
parameters can thus quite complex there being 2*4*2*3=48 distinct
possibilities.
References
----------
[1] Postel, J. (ed.), "Internet Protocol - DARPA Internet Program
Protocol Specification," RFC 791, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
Postel [Page 4]
^L
|
