💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc938.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 22:02:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: IRTP
Network Working Group Trudy Miller
Request for Comments: 938 ACC
February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
Functional and Interface Specification
STATUS OF THIS MEMO
This RFC is being distributed to members of the DARPA research
community in order to solicit their reactions to the proposals
contained in it. While the issues discussed may not be directly
relevant to the research problems of the DARPA community, they may be
interesting to a number of researchers and implementors. This RFC
suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and
requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution
of this memo is unlimited.
ABSTRACT
The Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol (IRTP) is a transport
level host to host protocol designed for an internet environment. It
provides reliable, sequenced delivery of packets of data between
hosts and multiplexes/demultiplexes streams of packets from/to user
processes representing ports. It is simple to implement, with a
minimum of connection management, at the possible expense of
efficiency.
Miller [Page i]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose ......................................... 1
1.2 Underlying Mechanisms ........................... 1
1.3 Relationship to Other Protocols ................. 2
IRTP HEADERS
2.1 Header Format ................................... 3
2.2 Packet Type ..................................... 3
2.3 Port Number ..................................... 3
2.4 Sequence Number ................................. 4
2.5 Length .......................................... 4
2.6 Checksum ........................................ 4
INTERFACES
3.1 User Services Provided By IRTP .................. 5
3.2 IP Services Expected by IRTP .................... 5
MODEL OF OPERATION
4.1 State Variables ................................. 6
4.2 IRTP Initialization ............................. 7
4.3 Host-to-Host Synchronization .................... 7
4.3.1 Response to SYNCH Packets ..................... 7
4.3.2 Response to SYNCH ACK Packet .................. 8
4.4 Transmitting Data ............................... 8
4.4.1 Receiving Data From Using Processes ........... 8
4.4.2 Packet Retransmission ......................... 10
4.5 Receiving Data .................................. 10
4.5.1 Receive and Acknowledgment Windows ............ 11
4.5.2 Invalid Packets ............................... 12
4.5.3 Sequence Numbers Within Acknowledge Window .... 12
4.5.4 Sequence Numbers Within the Receive Window .... 12
4.5.5 Forwarding Data to Using Processes ............ 13
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
5.1 Retransmission Strategies ....................... 14
5.2 Pinging ......................................... 14
5.3 Deleting Connection Tables ...................... 16
Miller [Page ii]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Relationship of IRTP to Other Protocols . 2
Figure 2-1 IRTP Header Format ...................... 3
Figure 4-1 SYNCH Packet Format ..................... 8
Figure 4-2 SYNCH ACK Packet Format ................. 8
Figure 4-3 DATA Packet Format ...................... 9
Figure 4-4 DATA ACK Packet Format .................. 11
Figure 4-5 PORT NAK Packet Format .................. 11
ABBREVIATIONS
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
IP Internet Protocol
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
RDP Reliable Data Protocol
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
UDP User Datagram Protocol
Miller [Page iii]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
The Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol (IRTP) is a full duplex,
transaction oriented, host to host protocol which provides reliable
sequenced delivery of packets of data, called transaction packets.
Note: throughout this document the terms host and internet address
are used interchangeably.
1.1 Purpose
The IRTP was designed for an environment in which one host will
have to maintain reliable communication with many other hosts. It
is assumed that there is a (relatively) sporadic flow of
information with each destination host, however information flow
may be initiated at any time at either end of the connection. The
nature of the information is in the form of transactions, i.e.
small, self contained messages. There may be times at which one
host will want to communicate essentially the same information to
all of its known destinations as rapidly as possible.
In effect, the IRTP defines a constant underlying connection
between two hosts. This connection is not established and broken
down, rather it can be resynchronized with minimal loss of data
whenever one of the hosts has been rebooted.
Due to the lack of connection management, it is desirable that all
IRTP processes keep static information about all possible remote
hosts. However, the IRTP has been designed such that minimal state
information needs to be associated with each host to host pair,
thereby allowing one host to communicate with many remote hosts.
The IRTP is more complex than UDP in that it provides reliable,
sequenced delivery of packets, but it is less complex than TCP in
that sequencing is done on a packet by packet (rather than
character stream) basis, and there is only one connection defined
between any two internet addresses (that is, it is not a process
to process protocol.)
1.2 Underlying Mechanisms
The IRTP uses retransmission and acknowledgments to guarantee
delivery. Checksums are used to guarantee data integrity and to
protect against misrouting. There is a host to host
synchronization mechanism and packet sequencing to provide
duplicate detection and ordered delivery to the user process. A
simple mechanism allows IRTP to multiplex and demultiplex streams
Miller [Page 1]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
of transaction packets being exchanged between multiple IRTP users
on this host and statically paired IRTP users on the same remote
host.
1.3 Relationship to Other Protocols
The IRTP is designed for use in a potentially lossy internet
environment. It requires that IP be under it. The IP protocol
number of IRTP is 28.
Conversely, IRTP provides a reliable transport protocol for one or
more user processes. User processes must have well-known IRTP
port numbers, and can communicate only with matching processes
with the same port number. (Note that the term port refers to a
higher level protocol. IRTP connections exists between two hosts,
not between a host/port and another host/port.)
These relationships are depicted below.
+--------+ +--------+ +-----------+
| port a |....| port x | | TCP users | Application Level
+--------+ +--------+ +-----------+
| | | ... |
+--------------+ +-----------+
| IRTP | | TCP | Host Level
+--------------+ +-----------+
| |
+--------------------------------------+
| Internet Protocol and ICMP | Internet Level
+--------------------------------------+
|
+--------------------------------------+
| Local Network Protocol | Network Level
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 1-1. Relationship of IRTP to Other Protocols
Miller [Page 2]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
CHAPTER 2 - IRTP HEADERS
2.1 Header Format
Each IRTP packet is preceded by an eight byte header depicted
below. The individual fields are described in the following
sections.
0 7 8 15 16 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| packet | port | sequence |
| type | number | number |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| length | checksum |
| | |
+-----------------+-----------------+
| |
| optional data octets |
+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Figure 2-1. IRTP Header Format
2.2 Packet Type
Five packet types are defined by the IRTP. These are:
packet type numeric code
SYNCH 0
SYNCH ACK 1
DATA 2
DATA ACK 3
PORT NAK 4
The use of individual packet types is discussed in MODEL OF
OPERATION.
2.3 Port Number
This field is used for the multiplexing and demultiplexing of
packets from multiple user processes across a single IRTP
connection. Processes which desire to use IRTP must claim port
numbers. A port number represents a higher level protocol, and
data to/from this port may be exchanged only with a process which
has claimed the same port number at a remote host. A process can
claim multiple port numbers, however, only one process may claim
an individual port number. All port numbers are well-known.
Miller [Page 3]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
2.4 Sequence Number
For each communicating pair of hosts, there are two sequence
numbers defined, which are the send sequence numbers for the two
ends. Sequence numbers are treated as unsigned 16 bit integers.
Each time a new transaction packet is sent, the sender increases
the sequence number by one. Initial sequence numbers are
established when the connection is resynchronized (see Section
4.3.)
2.5 Length
The length is the number of octets in this transaction packet,
including the header and the data. (This means that the minimum
value of the length is 8.)
2.6 Checksum
The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's
complement sum of the IRTP header and the transaction packet data
(padded with an octet of zero if necessary to make an even number
of octets.)
Miller [Page 4]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
CHAPTER 3 - INTERFACES
3.1 User Services Provided by IRTP
The exact interface to the TRTP from the using processes is
implementation dependent, however, IRTP should provide the
following services to the using processes.
o user processes must be able to claim a port number
o users must be able to request that data be sent to a
particular port at an internet address (the port must be one
which the user has claimed)
o users must be able to request transaction data from a
particular port at any (unspecified) remote internet address
(the port must be one which the user has claimed)
o if a port is determined to be unreachable at a particular
destination, the using process which has claimed that port
should be notified
In addition to these minimal data transfer services, a particular
implementation may want to have a mechanism by which a
"supervisory" (that is, port independent) module can define
dynamically the remote internet addresses which are legal targets
for host to host communication by this IRTP module. This
mechanism might be internal or external to the IRTP module itself.
3.2 IP Services Expected by IRTP
IRTP expects a standard interface to IP through which it can send
and receive transaction packets as IP datagrams. In addition, if
possible, it is desirable that IP or ICMP notify IRTP in the event
that a remote internet address is unreachable.
If the IP implementation (including ICMP) is able to notify IRTP
of source quench conditions, individual IRTP implementations may
be able to perform some dynamic adjustment of transmission
characteristics.
Miller [Page 5]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
CHAPTER 4 - MODEL OF OPERATION
The basic operation of IRTP is as follows. The first time two hosts
communicate (or the first time after both have simultaneously
failed,) synchronization is established using constant initial
sequence numbers (there is a sequence number for each direction of
transmission). The TCP "quiet time" is used following reboots to
insure that this will not cause inaccurate acknowledgment processing
by one side or the other.
Once synchronization has been achieved data may be passed in both
directions. Each transaction packet has a 16 bit sequence number.
Sequence numbers increase monotonically as new packets are generated.
The receipt of each sequence number must be acknowledged, either
implicitly or explicitly. At most 8 unacknowledged packets may be
outstanding in one direction. This number (called MAXPACK) is fixed
for all IRTP modules. Unacknowledged packets must be periodically
retransmitted. Sequence numbers are also used for duplicate
detection by receiving IRTP modules.
If synchronization is lost due to the failure of one of the
communicating hosts, after a reboot that host requests the remote
host to communicate sequence number information, and data transfer
continues.
4.1 State Variables
Each IRTP is associated with a single internet address. The
synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the requirement
that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses of all modules
with which it will communicate. For each remote internet address,
an IRTP module must maintain the following information (called the
connection table):
rem_addr (32 bit remote internet address)
conn_state (8 bit connection state)
snd_nxt (16 bit send sequence number)
rcv_nxt (16 bit expected next receive sequence number)
snd_una (16 bit first unacknowledged sequence number)
In addition to maintaining the connection tables defined above, it
is required that every IRTP module have some mechanism which
generates "retransmission events" such that SYNCH packets are
periodically retransmitted for any connection in synch_wait state
(see Section 4.3), and the appropriate DATA packet is periodically
retransmitted for any connection in data_transfer state (see
Section 4.4.2). It is implementation dependent whether this
Miller [Page 6]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
mechanism is connection dependent, or a uniform mechanism for all
connections, so it has not been made part of the connection state
table. See Chapter 5 for more discussion.
4.2 IRTP Initialization
Whenever a remote internet address becomes known by an IRTP
process, a 2 minute "quiet time" as described in the TCP
specification must be observed before accepting any incoming
packets or user requests. This is to insure that no old IRTP
packets are still in the network. In addition, a connection table
is initialized as follows:
rem_addr = known internet address
conn_state = 0 = out-of-synch
snd_nxt = 0
rcv_nxt = 0
snd_una = 0
Strictly speaking, the IRTP specification does not allow
connection tables to be dynamically deleted and recreated,
however, if this happens the above procedure must be repeated.
See Chapter 5 for more discussion.
4.3 Host-to-Host Synchronization
An IRTP module must initiate synchronization whenever it receives
a DATA packet or a user request referencing an internet address
whose connection state is out-of-synch. Typically, this will
happen only the first time that internet address is active
following the reinitialization of the IRTP module. A SYNCH packet
as shown below is transmitted. Having sent this packet, the host
enters connection state synch_wait (conn_state = 1). In this
state, any incoming DATA, DATA ACK or PORT NAK packets are
ignored. The SYNCH packet itself must be retransmitted
periodically until synchronization has been achieved.
4.3.1 Response to SYNCH Packets -
Whenever a SYNCH packet is received, the recipient, regardless
of current connection state, is required to to return a SYNCH
ACK packet as shown below. At this point the recipient enters
data_transfer state (conn_state = 2).
Miller [Page 7]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
4.3.2 Response to SYNCH ACK Packet -
On receipt of a SYNCH ACK packet, the behavior of the recipient
depends on its state. If the recipient is in synch_wait state
the recipient sets rcv_nxt to the sequence number value, sets
snd_nxt and snd_una to the value in the two-octet data field,
and enters data_transfer state (conn_state = 2). Otherwise,
the packet is ignored.
0 7 8 15 16 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00000000|00000000|00000000 00000000|
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 8 | checksum |
+-----------------+-----------------+
Figure 4-1. SYNCH Packet Format
0 7 8 15 16 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00000001| unused | snd_una |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 10 | checksum |
+-----------------+-----------------+
| rcv_nxt |
+-----------------+
Figure 4-2. SYNCH ACK Packet Format
4.4 Transmitting Data
Once in data_transfer state DATA, DATA ACK and PORT NAK packets
are used to achieve communication between IRTP processes, subject
to the constraint that no more than MAXPACK unacknowledged packets
may be transmitted on a connection at any time. Note that all
arithmetic operations and comparisons on sequence numbers
described in this chapter are to be done modulo 2 to the 16.
4.4.1 Receiving Data From Using Processes -
User processes may request IRTP to send packets of at most 512
user data octets to a remote internet address and IRTP port.
When such a request is received, the behavior of the IRTP
depends on the state of the connection with the remote host and
on implementation dependent considerations. If the connection
Miller [Page 8]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
between this IRTP module and the remote host is not in
data_transfer state, that state must be achieved (see Section
4.3) before acting on the user request.
Once the connection is in data_transfer state, the behavior of
the IRTP module in reaction to a write request from a user is
implementation dependent. The simplest IRTP implementations
will not accept write requests when MAXPACK unacknowledged
packets have been sent to the remote connection and will
provide interested users a mechanism by which they can be
notified when the connection is no longer in this state, which
is called flow controlled. Such implementations are called
blocking IRTP implementations. These implementations check, on
receipt of a write request, to see if the value of snd_nxt is
less than snd_una+MAXPACK. If it is, IRTP prepends a DATA
packet header as shown below, and transmits the packet. The
value of snd_nxt is then incremented by one. In addition, the
packet must be retained in a retransmission queue until it is
acknowledged.
0 7 8 15 16 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00000010|port num| snd_nxt |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| length | checksum |
+-----------------+-----------------+
| data octet(s) |
+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +
Figure 4-3. DATA Packet Format
Other implementations may allow (some number of) write requests
to be accepted even when the connection is flow controlled.
These implementations, called non-blocking IRTP
implementations, must maintain, in addition to the
retransmission queue for each connection, a queue of accepted
but not yet transmitted packets, in order of request. This is
called the pretransmission queue for the connection.
When a non-blocking implementation receives a write request, if
the connection is not flow controlled, it behaves exactly as a
blocking IRTP. Otherwise, it prepends a DATA packet header
without a sequence number to the data, and appends the packet
to the pretransmission queue. Note that in this case, snd_nxt
is not incremented. The value of snd_nxt is incremented only
when a packet is transmitted for the first time.
Miller [Page 9]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
4.4.2 Packet Retransmission -
The IRTP protocol requires that the transaction packet with
sequence number snd_una be periodically retransmitted as long
as there are any unacknowledged, but previously transmitted,
packets (that is, as long as the value of snd_una is not equal
to that of snd_nxt.)
The value of snd_una increases over time due to the receipt of
DATA ACK or PORT NAK packets from a remote host (see Sections
4.5.3 and 4.5.4 below). When either of these packet types is
received, if the incoming sequence number in that packet is
greater than the current value of snd_una, the value of snd_una
is set to the incoming sequence number in that packet. Any
DATA packets with sequence number less than the new snd_una
which were queued for retransmission are released.
(If this is a non-blocking IRTP implementation, for each DATA
packet which is thus released from the retransmission queue,
the earliest buffered packet may be transmitted from the
pretransmission queue, as long as the pretransmission queue is
non-empty. Prior to transmitting the packet, the current value
of snd_nxt is put in the sequence number field of the header.
The value of snd_nxt is then incremented by one.)
Finally, if the acknowledgment is a PORT NAK, the user process
with the nacked port number should be notified that the remote
port is not there.
It is also to be desired, though it is not required, that IRTP
modules have some mechanism to decide that a remote host is not
responding in order to notify user processes that this host is
apparently unreachable.
4.5 Receiving Data
When an IRTP module in data_transfer state receives a DATA packet,
its behavior depends on the port number, sequence number and
implementation dependent space considerations.
DATA ACK and PORT NAK packets are used to acknowledge the receipt
of DATA packets. Both of these acknowledgment packets acknowledge
the receipt of all sequence numbers up to, but not including, the
sequence number in their headers. Note that this value is denoted
"rcv_nxt" in the figures below. This number is the value of
rcv_nxt at the source of the acknowledgment packet when the
acknowledgment was generated.
Miller [Page 10]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
0 7 8 15 16 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00000011|port num| rcv_nxt |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 8 | checksum |
+-----------------+-----------------+
Figure 4-4. DATA ACK Packet Format
0 7 8 15 16 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00000100|port num| rcv_nxt |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 8 | checksum |
+-----------------+-----------------+
Figure 4-5. PORT NAK Packet Format
It is not required that a receiving IRTP implementation return an
acknowledgment packet for every incoming DATA packet, nor is it
required that the acknowledged sequence number be that in the most
recently received packet. The exact circumstances under which
DATA ACK and PORT NAK packets are sent are detailed below. The
net effect is that every sequence number is acknowledged, a sender
can force reacknowledgment if an ACK is lost, all acknowledgments
are cumulative, and no out of order acknowledgments are permitted.
4.5.1 Receive and Acknowledgment Windows -
Each IRTP module has two windows associated with the receive
side of a connection. For convenience in the following
discussion these are given names. The sequence number window
rcv_nxt-MAXPACK =< sequence number < rcv_nxt
is called the acknowledge window. All sequence numbers within
this window represent packets which have previously been acked
or nacked, however, the ack or nack may have been lost in the
network.
The sequence number window
rcv_nxt =< sequence number < rcv_nxt+MYRCV =< rcv_nxt+MAXPACK
is called the receive window. All sequence numbers within this
window represent legal packets which may be in transit,
assuming that the remote host has received acks for all packets
Miller [Page 11]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
in the acknowledge window. The value of MYRCV depends on the
implementation of the IRTP. In the simplest case this number
will be one, effectively meaning that the IRTP will ignore any
incoming packets not in the acknowledge window or not equal to
rcv_nxt. If the IRTP has enough memory to buffer some incoming
out-of-order packets, MYRCV can be set to some number =<
MAXPACK and a more complex algorithm can be used to compute
rcv_nxt, thereby achieving potentially greater efficiency.
Note that in the latter case, these packets are not
acknowledged until their sequence number is less than rcv_nxt,
thereby insuring that acknowledgments are always cumulative.
(See 4.5.4 below.)
4.5.2 Invalid Packets -
When an IRTP receives a DATA packet, it first checks the
sequence number in the received packet. If the sequence number
is not within the acknowledge or receive window, the packet is
discarded. Similarly, if the computed checksum does not match
that in the header, the packet is discarded. No further action
is taken.
4.5.3 Sequence Numbers Within Acknowledge Window -
When an IRTP receives an incoming DATA packet whose sequence
number is within the acknowledge window, if the port specified
in the incoming DATA packet is known to this IRTP, a DATA ACK
packet is returned. Otherwise, a PORT NAK is returned.
In both cases, the value put in the sequence number field of
the acknowlegement packet is the current value of rcv_nxt at
the IRTP module which is acknowledging the DATA packet. The
DATA packet itself is discarded.
(Note that the PORT NAK acknowledges reception of all packet
numbers up to rcv_nxt. It NAKs the port number, not the
sequence number.)
4.5.4 Sequence Numbers Within the Receive Window -
If the received sequence number is within the receive window,
rcv_nxt is recomputed. How this is done is implementation
dependent. If MYRCV is one, then rcv_nxt is simply
incremented. Otherwise, rcv_nxt is set to the lowest sequence
number such that all data packets with sequence numbers less
Miller [Page 12]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
than this number have been received and are buffered at the
receiving IRTP, or have been delivered to their destination
port.
Once rcv_nxt has been recomputed, a DATA ACK or PORT NAK is
returned, depending on whether the port number is known or not
known. The value placed in the sequence number field is the
newly computed value for rcv_nxt.
4.5.5 Forwarding Data to Using Processes -
Whenever an incoming DATA packet has been acknowledged (either
implicitly or explicitly) its header can be stripped off and it
can be queued for delivery to the user process which has
claimed its port number. If the IRTP implementation allows
MYRCV to be greater than one, care must be taken that data
which was originally received out of order is forwarded to its
intended recipient in order of original sequence number.
Miller [Page 13]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
CHAPTER 5 - IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
The preceding chapter was left intentionally vague in certain ways.
In particular, no explicit description of the use of a timer or
timers within an IRTP module was given, nor was there a description
of how timer events should relate to "retransmission events". This
was done to separate the syntactic and operational requirements of
the protocol from the performance characteristics of its
implementation.
It is believed that the protocol is robust. That is, any
implementation which strictly conforms to Chapter 4 should provide
reliable synchronization of two hosts and reliable sequenced transfer
of transaction data between them. However, different ways of
defining the notion of a retransmission event can have potentially
significant impact on the performance of the protocol in terms of
throughput and in terms of the load it places on the network. It is
up to the implementor to take into account overall requirements of
the network environment and the intended use of the protocol, if
possible, to optimize overall characteristics of the implementation.
Several such issues will be discussed in this chapter.
5.1 Retransmission Strategies
The IRTP requires that a timer mechanism exists to somehow trigger
retransmissions and requires that the packet with sequence number
snd_una be the one retransmitted. It is not required that
retransmission be performed on every timer event, though this is
one "retransmission strategy". A possible alternative strategy is
to perform a retransmission on a timer event only if no ACKs have
been received since the last event.
Additionally, the interval of the timer can affect the performance
of the strategies, as can the value of MYRCV and the lossiness of
the network environment.
It is not within the scope of this document to recommend a
retransmission strategy, only to point out that different
strategies have different consequences. It might be desirable to
allow using processes to "specify" a strategy when a port is
claimed in order to tailor the service of the protocol to the
needs of a particular application.
5.2 Pinging
It is important to make explicit that IRTP modules ping by
definition. That is, as long as a remote internet address is
Miller [Page 14]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
known, and is in use (that is, either synchronization or data
transfer is being attempted), the protocol requires "periodic
retransmission" of packets. Note that this is true even if the
IRTP module has determined that the remote address is currently
unreachable.
It is suggested that this situation can be made more sensible by
adding two fields to the connection table. These are:
num_retries (number of times current packet has been sent)
time_out (current retransmission timeout)
These fields are to be used as follows. It is assumed that there
is some default initial value for time_out called DEFTIME, some
(relatively long) value for time_out called PINGTIME and some
value MAX_TRIES. The exact values of these constants are
implementation dependent. The value of DEFTIME may also be
retransmission strategy dependent.
At the time that a connection table is initialized, num_retries is
set to zero, and time_out is set to DEFTIME. Whenever a
retransmission event occurs (this will either be a retransmission
of a SYNCH packet or of the packet with sequence number snd_una),
num_retries is incremented by one unless it is equal to MAX_TRIES.
If a destination is determined to be unreachable, either via an
ICMP message or a Destination Host Dead message, num_retries is
set to MAX_TRIES. Whenever num_retries transitions to MAX_TRIES,
either by being incremented or as above, the destination is is
presumed unreachable and user processes are notified. At this
point, time_out is set to PINGTIME, the state of the connection
does not change and retransmissions occur at PINGTIME intervals
until the destination becomes reachable.
Conversely, whenever a SYNCH_ACK is received (in synch_wait
state), or an (implicit or explicit) acknowledgment of sequence
number snd_una is received (in data transfer state), time_out is
set to DEFTIME and num_retries is reset to zero. If time_out was
already set to PINGTIME, user processes are notified that the
destination is now reachable.
The effect of this system is obvious. The implementation still
pings as required, but at presumably very infrequent intervals.
Alternative solutions, which might place the decision to ping on
using processes, are considered undesirable because
o IRTP itself becomes more complicated in terms of states of
the connection table
Miller [Page 15]
RFC 938 February 1985
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
o the user interface becomes both more complicated and more
rigid
o such solutions might be deadlock prone in some instances
o it seems appropriate that the host to host protocol should
be the place to determine destination reachability, if the
overall application requires that such information be known
(as it does in the environments intended for IRTP.)
5.3 Deleting Connection Tables
The protocol as defined does not allow connection tables to be
deleted (or for a connection state to transition to out_of_synch
from any other state). It might be appropriate to delete a
connection table if it is known that the destination internet
address is no longer one which this host wants to communicate
with. (The only danger there is that if the destination does not
know this, it could ping this host forever.) It is dangerous to
delete a connection table or to go into out_of_synch state to
avoid pinging when a destination does not appear to be there. Two
hosts with the same such strategy could potentially deadlock and
fail to resynchronize.
AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
Trudy Miller
Advanced Computer Communications
720 Santa Barbara Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 963-9431
Miller [Page 16]