💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc714.txt captured on 2023-09-08 at 21:02:37.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group A. McKenzie
Request for Comments: 714 BBN-NCC
NIC: 35144 April 1976
A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-Type Network
Recently we have been involved in the planning of a network, which,
if implemented, would use ARPANET IMPs without modification, but
would allow re-specification of Host/Host (and higher level)
Protocol. The remainder of this document is a slightly edited
version of our recommendation for Host/Host protocol; we thought that
it might be of interest to the ARPANET Community.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Host/Host Protocol for the ARPANET was the first such protocol
designed for use over a packet-switched network. The current version
has been in existence since early 1972 and has provided for the
transportation of billions of bits over tens or hundreds of thousands
of connections. Clearly, the protocol is adequate for the job; this
does not mean that it is ideal, however. In particular, the ARPANET
Host/Host protocol has been criticized on the following grounds
(among others):
(1) It is specified as a simplex protocol. Each established
connection is a simplex entity, thus two connections (one in each
direction) must be established in order to carry out an exchange
of messages. This provides great generality but at a perhaps
unacceptable cost in complexity.
(2) It is not particularly robust, in that it cannot continue to
operate correctly in the face of several types of message loss.
While it is true that the ARPANET itself rarely loses messages,
messages are occasionally lost, both by the network and by the
Hosts.
(3) Partly because of the simplex nature of connections, the flow
control mechanisms defined in the ARPANET protocol do not make
efficient use of the transactional nature of much of data
processing. Rather than carrying flow control information (in
the form of permits, or requests for more information) in the
reverse traffic, a separate channel is set up to convey this
information. Thus, for transactional systems, up to twice as
many messages are exchanged (half for flow control information
and half for data) as would be needed for data alone.
McKenzie [Page 1]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
(4) Prohibition against the multiple use of a connection termination
point makes the establishment of communication with service
facilities extremely cumbersome.
The International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP)
Working Group 6.1 (Packet-switched Network Internetworking) has
recently approved a proposal for an internetwork end-to-end protocol.
The IFIP Protocol is based on experience from the ARPANET, the
(French) Cyclade Network, and the (British) NPL Network, as well as
the plans of other networks. Thus, one would expect that it would
have all of the strengths and few (or none) of the weaknesses of the
protocols which are in use on, or planned for, these networks.
In fact, the IFIP Protocol avoids the deficiencies of the ARPANET
protocol mentioned above. Connections are treated as full-duplex
entities, and this decision permits flow control information to be
carried on the reverse channel in transaction-oriented systems where
there is reverse channel traffic occurring naturally. In addition,
the IFIP Protocol is to some extent self synchronizing; in
particular, there is no type of message loss from which the Protocol
does not permit recovery in a graceful way.
The IFIP Protocol makes a minimal number of assumptions about the
network over which it will operate. It is designed to permit
fragmentation, as a message crosses from one network to another,
without network reassembly. It anticipates duplication, or non-
delivery, of messages or message fragments and provides ways to
recover from these conditions. Finally, it permits delivery of
messages at their destination Host in a completely different order
from the order in which they were input by the source Host.
Unfortunately, it achieves these advantages at a relatively high
overhead cost in terms of transferred bits. The complete source and
destination process addresses are carried in every message, 24-bits
of fragment identification are carried with each fragment and 16-bits
of acknowledgement information are else carried in every message.
When considering channel capacities of hundreds of kilobits (or
more), message overhead of a few hundred bits is a modest price to
pay in order to achieve great flexibility and generality. However,
for a stand-alone network of the type under consideration, and
especially in view of the anticipated use of many circuits of 10kbs
capacity, the IFIP Protocol offers far more generality than is
needed, for which a fairly severe overhead price is paid.
The virtual circuit protocols currently being debated within the
International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT)
are a step in the opposite direction. Virtual circuit protocols
attempt to make a packet switching network indistinguishable (from a
McKenzie [Page 2]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
customer's point of view) from a switched circuit network, except
possibly in regard to error or delay characteristics. Thus, virtual
circuit protocols generally place responsibility for end-to-end
communications control within the network rather than within the
Hosts. For example, when a receiving Host limits the rate at which
it accepts data from the network, the network in turn limits the rate
of input from the Host which is transmitting this data stream. Host
protocols which are designed for virtual circuit networks can be
quite simple, if somewhat inflexible. For example, the Host might
give the network a "link number" or "index" and ask the network to
set up a virtual circuit to some other Host to be associated with
this number, and report back if and when the circuit is established.
However, significant development would be required to add a virtual
circuit capability to the ARPANET IMP software; the required changes
would seem to be more expensive and carry greater uncertainty than
they are worth.
In light of the above, our approach in defining this proposed
protocol has been to start with the ARPANET Host/Host Protocol and
modify it according to some of the concepts of the IFIP Protocol in
order to remedy its major deficiencies. The remainder of this
document specifies the protocol, which we have designed for this
purpose.
II. COMMUNICATION CONCEPTS
The IMP subnetwork imposes a number of physical restrictions on
communications between Hosts. These restrictions are presented in
BBN Report No. 1822. In particular, the concepts of leaders,
messages, padding, message ID's and message types are of interest to
the design of Host/Host Protocol. The following discussion assumes
that the reader is familiar with these concepts.
The IMP subnetwork takes cognizance only of Hosts, but in general a
Host connected to the network can support several users, several
terminals, or several independent processes. Since many or all of
these users, terminals, or processes will need to use the network
concurrently, a fundamental requirement of the Host/Host Protocol is
to provide process-to-process communication over the network. Thus,
it is necessary for the Host/Host Protocol to provide a richer
addressing structure than is required by the IMP subnetwork.
Processes within a Host are envisioned as communicating with the rest
of the network through a network control program (NCP) resident in
that Host, which implements the Host/Host protocol. The primary
functions of an NCP are to establish connections, break connections,
and control data flow over connections. A connection couples two
processes so that the output from one process is input to the other
McKenzie [Page 3]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
and vice versa. The NCP may be implemented either as part of the
Host's operating system or a separate user process, although it must
have the capability of communicating with all of the processes or
routines which are attempting to use the network.
In order to accomplish its tasks, the NCP of one Host must
communicate with the NCPs of other Hosts. To this end, a particular
communication path between each pair of Hosts has been designated as
the control connection. Messages transmitted over the control
connection are called control messages, and must always be
interpreted by an NCP as a sequence of one or more control commands.
For example, one kind of control command is used to initiate a
connection while another kind carries notification that a connection
has been terminated.*
* Note that in BBN Report No. 1822, messages of non-zero type are
called control messages, and are used to control the flow of
information between a Host and its IMP. In this document the
term "control message" is used for a message of type zero
transmitted over the control connection. The IMPs take no
special notice of these messages.
The maximum size of a message is limited by the IMP subnetwork to
approximately 1000 8-bit bytes, and in fact may be further limited by
the receiving Host for flow control reasons, as described later.
Accordingly, the transmitting process, or its Network Control
Program, must take responsibility for fragmenting long interprocess
messages into messages of a size conforming to the Host/Host and
Host/IMP protocols. For this reason, it is impossible for a sending
Host to guarantee that any significance should be attached to message
boundaries by receiving processes. Nevertheless, message boundaries
will occur naturally, and should be used in a reasonable way wherever
possible; that is, a sending process or its NCP should not act
arbitrarily in deciding to fragment messages. For example, this
protocol specifies that each control message must contain an integral
number of control commands and no single control command will be
split into two pieces which are carried through the network in
separate messages.
A major concern of the Host/Host Protocol is the definition of the
method for references to processes in other Hosts. In order to
facilitate this, a standard name space is used, with a separate
portion of the name space allocated to each Host. Each Host
therefore must map internal process identifiers into its portion of
this name space. The elements of the name space are called sockets.
A socket forms one end of a connection and a connection is fully
specified by a pair of sockets, one in each Host. A socket is
McKenzie [Page 4]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
identified by a Host number and a 16-bit socket number. The same
16-bit socket number in different Hosts represents difference
sockets. In order to avoid the transmission of a pair of 16-bit
socket numbers in each message between these sockets, the process of
connection establishment allows each Host to define a mapping, valid
for the lifetime of the connection being established, from the 32
bits which specify the socket pair to an 8-bit number.
No constraints are placed on the assignment of socket numbers;
however, since a pair of socket numbers defines a unique connection,
it is clear that in assigning socket numbers, a Host must ensure that
for each new connection at least one of the socket numbers is unique.
For example, a Host which supports many terminals might choose to use
a terminal's physical interface number as a portion of the socket
number involved in any connection established on behalf of that
terminal. This would insure uniqueness at the terminal end. Thus,
no conflict would occur if several terminals attempted to access a
common resource (identified by its own unique socket number).
From the foregoing it should be clear that the Host/Host protocol
allows a single socket to participate in several connections
simultaneously. This is quite similar to what happens in the
telephone system, where a company, as well as an individual, can be
identified with a phone number. As seen from the outside, the phone
number of a company is sharable, since several conversations can
proceed at the same time and the caller does not have to worry about
the already existing conversations. Conversely, the phone number of
an individual is not sharable, since he can process only one
conversation at a time; the same is generally true of a connection to
a terminal which might be using the network.
A final major concept which should be explained is the "windowing"
concept, which is used for flow control. This concept is adapted
from the IFIP protocol with some appropriate modifications for use in
an ARPANET-type network. When a connection is established, a
sequence number is initialized to some specified starting point and
the receiver allocates a certain number of credits to the sender.
Each credit entitles the sender to transmit one message; that is, the
receiver agrees to provide buffering for the number of messages
specified by the number of credits granted. If one thinks of
sequence numbers advancing from left to right, the initial sequence
number defines the left edge of a window into the entire sequence
number space and the credit, when added to the initial sequence
number, defines the right edge of the window. The transmitting
process is permitted to send as many messages and as would fill the
window, but not more.
McKenzie [Page 5]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
When a receiver receives a message whose sequence number is at the
left window edge (or several consecutive messages extending rightward
from the left window edge) the receiver returns an acknowledgement
for the rightmost such message, along with a new credit, and advances
his own window; its new left edge immediately follows the last
acknowledged message and it's new right edge is at the location
defined by adding the new credit to the new left window edge.
Similarly, when a sender receives an acknowledgement he advances his
own left window edge to the location in the sequence number space
specified by the acknowledgement and his own right window edge to the
location specified by adding the new credit allocation to the left
window edge. Fields are reserved in each data message to carry an
acknowledgement and a credit for traffic flowing in the reverse
direction. Thus, in the case of interactive or transactional
exchanges, no control messages need to be sent.
In the event that a sender does not receive acknowledgements for
previously transmitted messages within some timeout period, the
messages are transmitted again, using the same sequence number as was
previously assigned. This allows straightforward recovery from the
situation of lost messages. On the other hand, if it is the
returning acknowledgement which is lost, the fact that the
retransmitted message carries an identical sequence number allows the
receiver to discard it. However, the receiver should notice that at
the time of retransmission the sender had not received an
acknowledgement; therefore, the receiver should re-acknowledge this
(and any subsequently received messages) by transmitting an
acknowledgement bearing the current left window edge. Thus, in both
the case of lost data messages and the case of lost acknowledgements
the protocol remains synchronized.
The primary difference between this protocol and the IFIP Protocol is
in the size of the sequence number field. The IFIP Protocol is
designed for interconnections of many networks with huge
variabilities in delay and with a strong possibility that messages
will not be delivered at the destination in the same order in which
they were transmitted by the source. Thus, the IFIP Protocol uses a
16-bit sequence number field which, even at megabit per second rates
cannot be completely cycled through in less than several hours.
However, the proposed ARPANET-type network has the characteristic
that delays are typically short, messages are rarely lost, and they
are always delivered in the same order in which they were sent if
they are delivered at all. Therefore, this Host/Host Protocol uses
only a 4-bit sequence number field which, of course, is cycled
through every 16 messages. This imposes the constraint that a window
may never be larger than eight messages. Since the sequence number
is contained in a 4-bit field, it is also possible to use only four
McKenzie [Page 6]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
bits for each of the credit and acknowledgement fields; thus, this
protocol uses only 12 bits in each message header rather than 40 bits
used under the IFIP Protocol.
III. NCP FUNCTIONS
The functions of the NCP are to establish connections, terminate
connections, control flow, transmit interrupts, and respond to test
inquiries. These functions are explained in this section, and
control commands are introduced as needed. In Section IV the formats
of all control commands are presented together.
Connection Establishment
The command used to establish the connection is the RFC (request
for connection).
8* 16 16 8 16 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
! RFC ! my-socket ! your-socket ! Index ! size ! credit !
----------------------------------------------------------------
* The number shown above each control command field is the
length of that field in bits.
The RFC command either requests the establishment of a connection
between a pair of sockets or accepts a previously received request
for connection. Since the RFC command is used both for requesting
and accepting the establishment of a connection, it is possible
for either of two cooperating processes to initiate connection
establishment. Even if both processes were to simultaneously
request the establishment of a connection, each would interpret
receipt of the RFC sent by the other as an acceptance of its own
RFC, and thus the connection would be established without
difficulty. The my-socket and your-socket fields in the RFC
identify the sockets which terminate the ends of the connection at
each Host. The index field of the RFC specifies an index number
which will be contained in each data transmission sent over this
connection from the "my-socket" to the "your-socket" end of the
connection. The size field of the RFC specifies the maximum
number of 8-bit bytes which are permitted to be sent from the
"your-socket" to the "my-socket" end of the connection in any one
message. The credit field of the RFC specifies the initial size
(in the range 0-7) of the window in the "your-socket" to the "my-
socket" direction of the connection. A pair of RFCs exchanged
between two Hosts matches when the my-socket field of one equals
your-socket field of the other, and vice versa. The connection is
established when a matching pair of RFCs has been exchanged.
McKenzie [Page 7]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
Connections are uniquely specified by the sockets which terminate
the connection; thus, a pair of socket numbers cannot be used to
identify two different connections simultaneously. Similarly, the
index is used to specify which connection a data message pertains
to; thus, an index value cannot be reused while the connection to
which it was first assigned is still active or in the process of
being established. For example, consider an RFC sent from Host A
to Host B whose my-socket field contains the value X, your-socket
field contains the value Y, and index contains the value Z. Until
the requested connection has been closed (even if it is never
established) or reinitialized, Host A is prohibited from sending a
different RFC to Host B whose my-socket field and your-socket
fields are X and Y, or whose index field is Z. Note that the
prohibition against the reuse of the values X and Y treats them as
a pair; that is, another RFC may be sent from Host A to Host B,
whose my-socket field contains the value X so long as the your-
socket field contains some value other than Y.
In general there is no prescribed lifetime for an RFC. A Host is
permitted to queue incoming RFCs and withhold a response for an
arbitrarily long time, or, alternatively, to reject requests
immediately if it has not already sent a matching RFC. Of course,
the Host which originally sent the RFC may be unwilling to wait
for an arbitrarily long time so it may abort the request.
The decision to queue or not to queue incoming RFCs has important
implications which must not be ignored. Each RFC which is queued,
of course, requires a small amount of memory in the Host doing the
queuing. If the incoming RFC is queued until a local process
takes control of the local socket and accepts (or rejects) the
RFC, but no local process ever takes control of the socket, the
RFC must be queued "forever". On the other hand, if no queuing is
performed, the cooperating processes which may be attempting to
establish communication may be able to establish this
communication only by accident.
The most reasonable solution to the problems posed above is for
each NCP to give processes running in its own Host two options for
attempting to initiate connections. The first option would allow
a process to cause an RFC to be sent to a specified remote socket,
with the NCP notifying the process as to whether this RFC was
accepted or rejected by the remote Host. The second option would
allow a process to tell its own NCP to "listen" for an RFC to a
specified local socket from some remote socket (the process might
also specify the particular remote socket and/or Host it wishes to
communicate with) and to accept the RFC (i.e., return a matching
McKenzie [Page 8]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
RFC) if and when it arrives. Note that this also involves queuing
(of "listen" requests) but it is internal queuing, which is
susceptible to reasonable management by the local Host.
Connection Termination
The command used to terminate a connection is CLS (close).
8 16 16
-----------------------------------
! CLS ! my-socket ! your-socket !
-----------------------------------
The my-socket field and your-socket field of the CLS command
identify the sockets which terminate the connection being closed.
Each side must send and receive a CLS command before the
connection termination is completed and prohibitions on the reuse
of the socket pair and index value are ended.
It is not necessary for connection to be established (i.e., for
both RFCs to be exchanged) before connection termination begins.
For example, if a Host wishes to refuse a request for connection
it sends back a CLS instead of a matching RFC. The refusing Host
then waits for the initiating Host to acknowledge the refusal by
returning a CLS. Similarly, if a Host wishes to abort its
outstanding request for connection it sends a CLS command. The
foreign Host is obliged to acknowledge the CLS with its own CLS.
Note that even though the connection was never established, CLS
commands must be exchanged before the prohibition on the reuse of
the socket pair or the index is completely ended. Under normal
circumstances a Host should not send a CLS command for a
connection on which that Host has unacknowledged data outstanding.
Of course, the other Host may have just transmitted data so the
sender of the CLS command may expect to receive additional data
from the other Host.
The Host should quickly acknowledge an incoming CLS so that the
foreign Host can purge its tables. In particular, in the absence
of outstanding unacknowledged data a Host must acknowledge an
incoming close within 60 seconds. Following a 60 second period,
the Host transmitting a CLS may regard the socket pair and the
index as "unused" and it may delete the values from any tables
describing active connections. Of course, if the foreign Host
malfunctions in such a way that the CLS is ignored for longer than
60 seconds, subsequent attempts to establish connections or
transmit data may lead to ambiguous results. To deal with this
possibility, a Host should in general "reinitialize" its use of
connection parameters before attempting to establish a new
McKenzie [Page 9]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
connection to any Host which has failed to respond to CLS
commands. Methods for reinitializing connection parameter tables
are described below.
Acknowledgement
As described in the previous section, flow control is handled by a
windowing scheme, based on sequence numbers. Credits and
acknowledgements can be piggybacked on data traveling over the
reverse channel. Thus, in general, acknowledgement of the receipt
of messages will take place over the data connection rather than
over the control connection. However, there are some cases when
it may be desirable to pass acknowledgements over the control
connection (for example, when there is no data to be returned in
the reverse direction). In addition, for efficiency it may be
desirable to negatively acknowledge data transmissions known not
to have been delivered, rather than waiting for the timeout and
retransmission mechanism to cause such messages to be
retransmitted. [Note that such negative acknowledgement is not
required, since timeout and retransmission is always sufficient to
guarantee eventual delivery of all data, but may be used to
increase the efficiency of communication.] Since the frequency of
use of the negative acknowledgement system over an ARPANET-type
network will be extremely low, it is undesirable to leave space
for negative acknowledgements in the header of every data message.
Thus, negative acknowledgement can be most conveniently handled by
control messages.
There are two commands dealing with acknowledgements.
8 8 4 4
---------------------------------
! ACK ! index ! seq ! crd !
---------------------------------
The ACK (acknowledgement) command carries three data fields. The
index value is the index used by the sender of the acknowledgement
to identify the connection. The sequence ("seq") field contains
the sequence number of the highest-numbered sequential data
message correctly received over the connection. [The very first
data message to be transmitted over a newly established connection
will have the sequence number one; until this data message is
correctly received, any acknowledgement commands transmitted for
this connection (for example, to change the credit value) will
have the sequence field set to zero. This applies whether the
"acknowledgement" is carried by an ACK command or is contained in
data messages being sent to the foreign Host over the connection.]
The credit ("crd") field contains a number, in the range 0-7,
McKenzie [Page 10]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
which gives the size of the receive window. This number, when
added to the "seq", gives the sequence number of the highest
numbered message which is permitted to be transmitted by the
foreign Host. Thus, a credit of zero says that the Host
transmitting the ACK command is currently not prepared to accept
any messages over the connection; and a credit of 7 says the Host
is prepared to accept up to 7 messages over the connection. Of
course, since the sequence number is contained in a 4-bit field,
the addition of the sequence number and the credit value must be
performed modulo 16 (sequence number zero immediately follows
sequence number 15).
As noted above, the ACK command is intended for use with data
connections where there is no data flow in one direction, for
example, the transmission of a file to a line printer. In fact it
should be clear that, since transmission of control messages is
not synchronized with transmission of data messages (either in the
network or, more importantly, in the transmitting NCP), ACK
commands should not be sent for any connection over which data is
flowing in the same direction. Thus, if an ACK command is
generated, the NCP which transmits it must insure that the control
message which contains it is transmitted prior to the transmission
of new data messages for the same connection.
8 8 8
--------------------------
! NACK ! index ! seq !
--------------------------
The NACK (negative acknowledgement) command contains two data
fields. As with the positive acknowledgement command described
above, the first field is the index number assigned to this
connection by the sender of the NACK. However, the second field
contains only the 4-bit sequence number, right justified in an 8-
bit field, of the data message for the connection in question
which is being negatively acknowledged. As previously noted, the
NACK serves no vital function in the protocol but may occasionally
allow more efficient communication. The NACK is intended to be
used when the window width is greater than one, the message at the
left window edge has not been correctly received, and messages
toward the right of the window have been correctly received. A
timeout will eventually cause the retransmission of the missing
message, at which point the left window edge can be moved forward
several messages. Use of the NACK, however, could trigger the
immediate retransmission of the missing message and thus reduce
the delay. Of course, if more than one message is missing it may
McKenzie [Page 11]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
be desirable to send several NACKs for one index in a single
control message; the protocol permits this, although it is
extremely unlikely to occur.
Re-initialization
Occasionally, due to lost control messages, system crashes, NCP
errors, or other factors, communication between two NCPs will be
disrupted. One possible effect of any such disruption might be
that neither of the involved NCPs could be sure that its stored
information regarding connections with the other Host matched the
information stored by the NCP of the other Host. In this
situation, an NCP may wish to reinitialize its tables and request
that the other Host do likewise. This re-initialization may be
requested for a particular index and/or socket pair, or globally
for all connections possibly established with the other Host. For
these purposes, the protocol provides three control commands as
described below:
8 16 16 8
-------------------------------------------
! RCP ! my-socket ! your-socket ! index !
-------------------------------------------
The RCP (reinitialize connection parameters) command contains
three data fields. The my-socket and your-socket fields contain a
pair of socket numbers, which define a connection; the index field
contains a value which would identify data messages over a
connection. When this command is received by an NCP it should
purge its tables of any reference to a connection identified by
the socket pair or any reference to a connection for which
received data would be identified by the specified index value; of
course, only connections using these values with the Host sending
the RCP would be purged. In effect, the Host sending the RCP
command is saying: "I am about to send you an RFC using this
socket pair and this index to identify a data connection, which I
hope we can agree to establish. I do not believe that any use of
this socket pair or this index conflicts with any previous use,
but if you believe it does, please record the fact (for later
examination) as an error and then delete from your tables the
conflicting information so that we may proceed to establish the
connection."
In case more global difficulties or loss of state information are
suspected, the protocol provides the pair of control commands RST
(reset) and RRP (reset reply).
McKenzie [Page 12]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
8
---------
! RST !
---------
8
---------
! RRP !
---------
The RST command is to be interpreted by the Host receiving it as a
signal to purge its tables of any entries which arose from
communication with the Host which sent the RST. The Host sending
the RST should likewise purge its tables of any entries which
arose from communication with the Host to which the RST was sent.
The Host receiving the RST should acknowledge receipt by returning
an RRP. Once the first Host has sent an RST to the second Host,
the first Host should not communicate with the second Host (except
for responding to RST) until the second Host returns an RRP. If
both NCPs decide to send RSTs at approximately the same time, each
Host will receive an RST and each must answer with an RRP even
though its own RST has not been answered.
A Host should not send an RRP when an RST has not been received.
Further, a Host should send only one RST (and no other commands)
in a single control message and should not send another RST to the
same Host until either 60 seconds have elapsed or a command which
is not an RST or RRP has been received from that Host. Under
these conditions, a single RRP constitutes an answer to all RSTs
sent to that Host and any other RRPs arriving from that Host
should be discarded.
Interrupts
It is sometimes necessary in a communication system to circumvent
flow control mechanisms when serious errors or other important
conditions are detected. For example, the user of a time sharing
terminal who creates and begins the execution of a program which
contains an erroneous infinite loop may need to "attract the
attention" of the operating system to ask it to cancel the
execution of his program, even though the operating system may
normally "listen" to the terminal only when the program in
execution asks for input. Similarly, in a computer communication
network, where flow control may prevent the transmission of data
from one process to another, under certain extraordinary
conditions it may be necessary to pass a signal from one process
to another. Since the channel between the NCPs of two Hosts is
not subject to the flow control mechanisms imposed on the data
McKenzie [Page 13]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
connections, it is possible to transmit such an "out-of-band"
signal over the control connection, and for this purpose the INT
(interrupt) command is provided.
8 8 8
-------------------------
! INT ! index ! seq !
-------------------------
The INT command contains two data fields. The index field
identifies the data connection to which the "interrupt" pertains;
the sequence number ("seq"), which is four bits right-justified in
an eight-bit field, gives the sequence number of the first data
message which should "come after" the interrupt. In other words,
the INT command notifies the receiving NCP of an exception
condition which must be synchronized with the data stream, and the
sequence number provides the necessary synchronization. Any data
messages with sequence numbers to the left of the specified
sequence number were generated before the exception condition
arose.
An NCP which receives an INT command should advance the right
window edge of the specified data connection so that the window
contains at least the sequence number specified in the interrupt
command. (It may be necessary to acknowledge data messages which
were not correctly received or were not buffered in order to be
able to advance the window to this point; justification is
provided by the assumption that the INT was sent only because the
flow control mechanisms were preventing the transmission of
important information.) Of course, the interrupt or exception
signal itself is subject to the interpretation of the Host
receiving the signal, but should have a meaning equivalent to:
"notify the process in execution, or that process' superior, that
something exceptional has happened and that the data now buffered
is an important message."
Test Inquiry
It may sometimes be useful for one Host to determine if some other
Host is carrying on network conversations. The control command to
be used for this purpose is ECO (echo).
8 8
------------------
! ECO ! data !
------------------
McKenzie [Page 14]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
The data field of the ECO command may contain any bit
configuration chosen by the Host sending the ECO. Upon receiving
an ECO command, an NCP should respond by returning the data to the
sender in an ERP (echo reply) command.
8 8
------------------
! ERP ! data !
------------------
A Host should respond (with an ERP command) to an incoming ECO
command within a reasonable time, here defined as sixty seconds or
less. A Host should not send an ERP when no ECO has been
received.
IV. DECLARATIVE SPECIFICATIONS
Message Format
All Host-to-Host messages which conform to this protocol shall be
constructed as follows:
Bits 1-96: Leader - This field is as specified in BBN Report No.
1822, with the following additional specifications.
Bits 38-40: Maximum Message Size - This field should be zero for
all control messages. For messages sent over data connections,
the value of this field should be calculated from the size
received in the RFC which established the connection.
Bits 65-76: Message-id - This field is subdivided into eight bits
giving the index of the connection of which the message is a part,
and four bits giving the sequence number of the message. The
index is contained in bits 65-72, and the sequence number in bits
73-76.
Bits 97-100: Acknowledgement - This field contains the four-bit
sequence number of the highest-numbered data message to the left
of the window for this connection; that is, the sequence number
identifying the highest-numbered of the sequence of consecutively
numbered (none missing) data messages which have been correctly
received over this connection. If no data messages have been
received since the connection was established, this field must
contain the value zero. This field is not used (i.e., may have
any value) in control messages.
McKenzie [Page 15]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
Bits 101-104: Credit - This field contains a number in the range
0-7. Adding this number (modulo 16) to the sequence number in the
acknowledgement field (bits 97-100) gives the highest sequence
number which the foreign Host is permitted to send over this data
connection. Thus, a value of zero in this field indicates that no
new data messages should be sent, and a value of seven indicates
that the foreign Host may send up to seven messages beyond the
message whose sequence number is specified by the acknowledgement
bits. Since flow control does not apply to messages sent over the
control connection, this field may have any value in control
messages.
Bits 105 - ... : Text and padding - A sequence of 8-bit bytes of
text, followed by padding, as specified in BBN Report No. 1822.
Index Assignment
Index values must be assigned (in bits 65-72) as follows:
Number Assignment
0 Identifies a control connection
1 Reserved for revisions to this protocol
2-191 Identify data connections
192-255 Reserved for expansion or for other protocols
Sequence Number Assignment
Every data message contains a sequence number in bits 73-76. The
sequence number is used by the receiver to detect the fact that a
transmitted message has been lost, to identify the correct
location in the data stream to insert a retransmitted (and
therefore probably out of order) message which was previously lost
(or to detect the retransmitted message as a duplicate) and to
identify acknowledged messages (or sequences of messages) to the
sender. The sequence number is also used by the flow control
mechanism. Since the IMP subnetwork itself contains elaborate
mechanisms to achieve these same goals, it is not anticipated that
the error-recovery mechanisms based on the sequence numbers will
be called into play frequently, and thus their efficiency is not
of primary importance.
Sequence numbers are assigned to the two directions of a
connection independently. For a given direction of a connection,
the first data message transmitted after the connection is
McKenzie [Page 16]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
established must have sequence number one. Subsequent messages
are assigned sequentially increasing (modulo 16) sequence numbers;
that is, sequence number zero is assigned to the message following
message number 15.
Sequence numbers are not assigned to control messages, since the
protocol is designed to permit these messages to be delivered
out-of-sequence without ill effect, and since flow control cannot
be applied to the control link.
Control Messages
Messages sent over the control connection have the same format as
other Host-to-Host messages, with the exceptions noted above.
However, control messages may not contain more than 120 8-bit
bytes of text. Further, control messages must contain an integral
number of control commands; a single control command must not be
split into parts which are transmitted in different control
messages.
Message Transmission and Retransmission
Control messages may be transmitted whenever they are required.
Data messages, however, may be transmitted only when permitted by
the flow control mechanism; that is, whenever the sequence number
assigned to the message is within the "window" for the appropriate
direction of the given connection. The "left window edge" (LWE)
is defined by the highest sequence number (modulo 16) which has
been acknowledged (or zero, if no messages have been
acknowledged). The "right window edge" (RWE) is defined by adding
(modulo 16) the most recently received credit to the left window
edge. [Note that LWE=RWE if the most recently received credit is
zero.] A message with sequence number SEQ may be transmitted only
if, prior to the (possible) reduction modulo 16 of the SEQ and/or
RWE, it is true that
LWE less-than SEQ less-than-or-equal RWE
Messages should be retransmitted whenever any of the following
conditions occur:
- The IMP subnetwork has returned an "Incomplete transmission"
(type 9) or "Error in Data" (type 8) response to the message
(identified by having bits 41-76 of the response equal to those
bits of the transmitted message). Note that this condition
applies to control messages as well as data messages.
McKenzie [Page 17]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
- The sequence number of this message is equal to (LWE + 1), and
it has been more than 30 seconds since the message was last
transmitted.
- The sequence number of the message is specifically identified in
a NACK command for this connection from the foreign Host.
Since messages may occasionally have to be retransmitted, it is
clear that they should not be discarded by the transmitting NCP
until they have been acknowledged. A message is considered to be
acknowledged when its sequence number, or the sequence number of
any message to the right of it in the same direction of the given
connection, is returned in the acknowledgement field of a data
message transmitted in the other direction over this connection,
or is returned in an ACK command for this connection from the
foreign Host.
Control Commands
Control commands are formatted in terms of 8-bit bytes. Each
command begins with a one byte opcode. Opcodes are assigned the
sequential values 0, 1, 2, ... to permit table lookup upon
receipt. The conditions underlying the design and anticipated use
of the control commands are described in Section III.
NOP - No Operation
8
---------
! NOP !
---------
The NOP command may be sent at any time and should be discarded by
the receiver. It may be useful for formatting control messages.
RST - Reset
8
---------
! RST !
---------
The RST command is used by one Host to inform another that all
information regarding any previously existing connections between
the two Hosts should be purged from the NCP tables of the Host
receiving the RST. Except for responding to RSTs, the Host which
sent the RST should not communicate further with the other Host
until an RRP is received in response. When a Host is about to
McKenzie [Page 18]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
begin communicating (e.g., send an RFC command) to another Host
with which it has no open connections, it is good practice to
first send an RST command and wait for an RRP command.
RRP - Reset Reply
8
---------
! RRP !
---------
The RRP command must be sent in reply to an RST command.
RFC - Request for Connection
8 16 16 8 16 8
---------------------------------------------------------
! RFC ! my-socket ! your-socket ! index ! size ! credit !
---------------------------------------------------------
The RFC command is used to establish a connection. The "my-
socket" field specifies the socket local to the Host transmitting
the RFC; the "your-socket" field specifies the socket local to the
Host to which the RFC is transmitted. The "index" field specifies
the index value which will be given in bits 65-72 of each data
message sent from "my-socket" to "your-socket". The "size" field
specifies the maximum number of 8-bit bytes which may be
transmitted in any single message from "your-socket" to "my-
socket". The "credit" field specifies the size of the initial
sequence number window (in the range 0-7) in the "your-socket" to
"my-socket" direction.
CLS - Close
8 16 16
-----------------------------------
! CLS ! my-socket ! your-socket !
-----------------------------------
The CLS command is used to terminate a connection. The connection
need not be completely established before CLS is sent.
RCP - Re-Initialize Connection Parameters
8 16 16 8
-------------------------------------------
! RCP ! my-socket ! your-socket ! index !
-------------------------------------------
McKenzie [Page 19]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
The RCP command is used by one Host to inform another that all
information regarding a possibly previously-existing connection
between "my-socket" and "your-socket" AND all information
regarding a possibly previously-existing connection identified by
"index" (between these Hosts) should be purged from the tables of
the Host receiving the RCP. The "my-socket", "your-socket", and
"index" fields are defined as in the RFC command.
ACK - Acknowledgement
8 8 4 4
---------------------------------
! ACK ! index ! seq ! crd !
---------------------------------
The ACK command may be used to acknowledge received data, or to
assign credit, without sending a data message. The value in the
index field identifies the data connection which uses the same
index value (in the direction from the sender of the ACK to the
receiver of the ACK). The eight bits following the index field
(the "seq" and "crd" field) have the same meaning as bits 97-104
of the data message identified by the index value.
NACK -- Negative Acknowledgement
8 8 8
--------------------------
! NACK ! index ! seq !
--------------------------
The NACK command informs the receiver of the NACK that it should
immediately retransmit the data message identified by the
remaining fields. The index field is defined exactly as for the
ACK command. The "seq" field gives the 4-bit sequence number
(right-justified) which should be immediately retransmitted. Note
that the data message to be retransmitted does not have an index
value equal to "index", but instead is transmitted over the other
direction of the data connection which the Host sending the NACK
identifies by "index". No Host is ever required to transmit or
act upon a NACK command; however, use of the NACK may occasionally
permit a decrease in retransmission delay.
INT - Interrupt
8 8 8
-------------------------
! INT ! index ! seq !
-------------------------
McKenzie [Page 20]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
The INT command is sent over the control link to provide an "out-
of-band" (and hence not subject to flow control) signal for the
data connection denoted by the index field. The index value is
the value which would appear in bits 65-72 of a data message sent
from the sender of the INT command to the receiver of the INT
command. The means of synchronizing this signal with the data
being transmitted over the data connection is the inclusion of a
4-bit sequence number (right-justified) in the "seq" field. The
number specified by this field denotes the first data message
which "follows" the out-of-band signal.
ECO - Echo Request
8 8
------------------
! ECO ! data !
------------------
The ECO command is used only for test purposes. The data field
may be any bit configuration convenient to the Host sending the
ECO command.
ERP - Echo Reply
8 8
------------------
! ERP ! data !
------------------
The ERP command must be sent in reply to an ECO command. The data
field must be identical to the data field in the incoming ECO
command.
Opcode Assignment
Opcodes are defined to be 8-bit unsigned binary numbers. The
values assigned to opcodes are:
NOP = 0
INT = 1
RFC = 2
CLS = 3
ACK = 4
McKenzie [Page 21]
RFC 714 A Host/Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type Network April 1976
NACK = 5
RCP = 6
RST = 7
RRP = 8
ECO = 9
ERP = 10
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with ]
[ support from BBN Corp. and its successors. 7/2000 ]
McKenzie [Page 22]