💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc1356.txt captured on 2023-11-04 at 14:47:51.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group A. Malis
Request for Comments: 1356 BBN Communications
Obsoletes: RFC 877 D. Robinson
Computervision Systems Integration
R. Ullmann
Process Software Corporation
August 1992
Multiprotocol Interconnect
on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode
Status of this Memo
This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet
community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document specifies the encapsulation of IP and other network
layer protocols over X.25 networks, in accordance and alignment with
ISO/IEC and CCITT standards. It is a replacement for RFC 877, "A
Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams Over Public Data
Networks" [1].
It was written to correct several ambiguities in the Internet
Standard for IP/X.25 (RFC 877), to align it with ISO/IEC standards
that have been written following RFC 877, to allow interoperable
multiprotocol operation between routers and bridges over X.25, and to
add some additional remarks based upon practical experience with the
specification over the 8 years since that RFC.
The substantive change to the IP encapsulation is an increase in the
allowed IP datagram Maximum Transmission Unit from 576 to 1600, to
reflect existing practice.
This document also specifies the Internet encapsulation for
protocols, including IP, on the packet mode of the ISDN. It applies
to the use of Internet protocols on the ISDN in the circuit mode only
when the circuit is established as an end-to-end X.25 connection.
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 1]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
Acknowledgements
RFC 877 was written by J. T. Korb of Purdue University, and this
document follows that RFC's format and builds upon its text as
appropriate. This document was produced under the auspices of the IP
over Large Public Data Networks Working Group of the IETF.
1. Conventions
The following language conventions are used in the items of
specification in this document:
o MUST -- the item is an absolute requirement of the specification.
MUST is only used where it is actually required for interoperation,
not to try to impose a particular method on implementors where not
required for interoperability.
o SHOULD -- the item should be followed for all but exceptional
circumstances.
o MAY or optional -- the item is truly optional and may be followed
or ignored according to the needs of the implementor.
The words "should" and "may" are also used, in lower case, in their
more ordinary senses.
2. Introduction
RFC 877 was written to document the method CSNET and the VAN Gateway
had adopted to transmit IP datagrams over X.25 networks. Its success
is evident in its current wide use and the inclusion of its IP
protocol identifier in ISO/IEC TR 9577, "Protocol Identification in
the Network Layer" [2], which is administered by ISO/IEC and CCITT.
However, due to changes in the scope of X.25 and the protocols that
it can carry, several inadequacies have become evident in the RFC,
especially in the areas of IP datagram Maximum Transmission Unit
(MTU) size, X.25 maximum data packet size, virtual circuit
management, and the interoperable encapsulation, over X.25, of
protocols other than IP between multiprotocol routers and bridges.
As with RFC 877, one or more X.25 virtual circuits are opened on
demand when datagrams arrive at the network interface for
transmission. A virtual circuit is closed after some period of
inactivity (the length of the period depends on the cost associated
with an open virtual circuit). A virtual circuit may also be closed
if the interface runs out of virtual circuits.
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 2]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
3. Standards
3.1 Protocol Data Units (PDUs) are sent as X.25 "complete packet
sequences". That is, PDUs begin on X.25 data packet boundaries and
the M bit ("more data") is used to fragment PDUs that are larger
than one X.25 data packet in length.
In the IP encapsulation the PDU is the IP datagram.
3.2 The first octet in the Call User Data (CUD) Field (the first data
octet in the Call Request packet) is used for protocol
demultiplexing, in accordance with the Subsequent Protocol
Identifier (SPI) in ISO/IEC TR 9577. This field contains a one-
octet Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID), which identifies
the network layer protocol encapsulated over the X.25 virtual
circuit. The CUD field MAY contain more than one octet of
information, and receivers MUST ignore all extraneous octets in the
field.
In the following discussion, the most significant digit of the
binary numbers is left-most.
For the Internet community, the NLPID has four relevant values:
The value hex CC (binary 11001100, decimal 204) is IP [6].
Conformance with this specification requires that IP be supported.
See section 5.1 for a diagram of the packet formats.
The value hex 81 (binary 10000001, decimal 129) identifies ISO/IEC
8473 (CLNP) [4]. ISO/IEC TR 9577 specifically allows other ISO/IEC
connectionless-protocol packets, such as ES-IS and IS-IS, to also be
carried on the same virtual circuit as CLNP. Conformance with this
specification does not require that CLNP be supported. See section
5.2 for a diagram of the packet formats.
The value hex 82 (binary 10000010, decimal 130) is used specifically
for ISO/IEC 9542 (ES-IS) [5]. If there is already a circuit open to
carry CLNP, then it is not necessary to open a second circuit to
carry ES-IS. Conformance with this specification does not require
that ES-IS be supported.
The value hex 80 (binary 10000000, decimal 128) identifies the use
of IEEE Subnetwork Access Protocol (SNAP) [3] to further encapsulate
and identify a single network-layer protocol. The SNAP-encapsulated
protocol is identified by including a five-octet SNAP header in the
Call Request CUD field immediately following the hex 80 octet. SNAP
headers are not included in the subsequent X.25 data packets. Only
one SNAP-encapsulated protocol may be carried over a virtual circuit
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 3]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
opened using this encoding. The receiver SHOULD accept the incoming
call only if it can support the particular SNAP-identified protocol.
Conformance with this specification does not require that this SNAP
encoding be supported. See section 5.3 for a diagram of the packet
formats.
The value hex 00 (binary 00000000, decimal 0) identifies the Null
encapsulation, used to multiplex multiple network layer protocols
over the same circuit. This encoding is further discussed in
section 3.3 below.
The "Assigned Numbers" RFC [7] contains one other non-CCITT and
non-ISO/IEC value that has been in active use for Internet X.25
encapsulation identification, namely hex C5 (binary 11000101,
decimal 197) for Blacker X.25. This value MAY continue to be used,
but only by prior preconfiguration of the sending and receiving X.25
interfaces to support this value. The value hex CD (binary
11001101, decimal 205), listed in "Assigned Numbers" for "ISO-IP",
is also used by Blacker and also can only be used by prior
preconfiguration of the sending and receiving X.25 interfaces.
Each system MUST only accept calls for protocols it can process;
every Internet system MUST be able to accept the CC encapsulation
for IP datagrams. A system MUST NOT accept calls, and then
immediately clear them. Accepting the call indicates to the calling
system that the protocol encapsulation is supported; on some
networks, a call accepted and cleared is charged, while a call
cleared in the request state is not charged.
Systems that support NLPIDs other than hex CC (for IP) SHOULD allow
their use to be configured on a per-peer address basis. The use of
hex CC (for IP) MUST always be allowed between peers and cannot be
configured.
3.3 The NLPID encodings discussed in section 3.2 only allow a single
network layer protocol to be sent over a circuit. The Null
encapsulation, identified by a NLPID encoding of hex 00, is used in
order to multiplex multiple network layer protocols over one
circuit.
When the Null encapsulation is used, each X.25 complete packet
sequence sent on the circuit begins with a one-octet NLPID, which
identifies the network layer protocol data unit contained only in
that particular complete packet sequence. Further, if the SNAP
NLPID (hex 80) is used, then the NLPID octet is immediately followed
by the five-octet SNAP header, which is then immediately followed by
the encapsulated PDU. The encapsulated network layer protocol MAY
differ from one complete packet sequence to the next over the same
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 4]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
circuit.
When a receiver is presented with an Incoming Call identifying the
Null encapsulation, the receiver MUST accept the call if it supports
the Null encapsulation for any network layer protocol. The receiver
MAY then silently discard a multiplexed PDU if it cannot support
that particular encapsulated protocol. See section 5.4 for a
diagram of the packet formats.
Use of the single network layer protocol circuits described in
section 3.2 is more efficient in terms of bandwidth if only a
limited number of protocols are supported by a system. It also
allows each system to determine exactly which protocols are
supported by its communicating partner. Other advantages include
being able to use X.25 accounting to detail each protocol and
different quality of service or flow control windows for different
protocols.
The Null encapsulation, for multiplexing, is useful when a system,
for any reason (such as implementation restrictions or network cost
considerations), may only open a limited number of virtual circuits
simultaneously. This is the method most likely to be used by a
multiprotocol router, to avoid using an unreasonable number of
virtual circuits.
If performing IEEE 802.1d bridging across X.25 is desired, then the
Null encapsulation MUST be used. See section 4.2 for a further
discussion.
Conformance with this specification does not require that the Null
encapsulation be supported.
Systems that support the Null encapsulation SHOULD allow its use to
be configured on a per-peer address basis.
3.4 For compatibility with existing practice, and RFC 877 systems, IP
datagrams MUST, by default, be encapsulated on a virtual circuit
opened with the CC CUD.
Implementations MAY also support up to three other possible
encapsulations of IP:
o IP may be contained in multiplexed data packets on a circuit using
the Null (multiplexed) encapsulation. Such data packets are
identified by a NLPID of hex CC.
o IP may be encapsulated within the SNAP encapsulation on a circuit.
This encapsulation is identified by containing, in the 5-octet SNAP
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 5]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
header, an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) of hex 00-00-00
and Protocol Identifier (PID) of hex 08-00.
o On a circuit using the Null encapsulation, IP may be contained
within the SNAP encapsulation of IP in multiplexed data packets.
If an implementation supports the SNAP, multiplexed, and/or
multiplexed SNAP encapsulations, then it MUST accept the encoding of
IP within the supported encapsulation(s), MAY send IP using those
encapsulation(s), and MUST allow the IP encapsulation to send to be
configured on a per-peer address basis.
3.5 The negotiable facilities of X.25 MAY be used (e.g., packet and
window size negotiation). Since PDUs are sent as complete packet
sequences, any maximum X.25 data packet size MAY be configured or
negotiated between systems and their network service providers. See
section 4.5 for a discussion of maximum X.25 data packet size and
network performance.
There is no implied relationship between PDU size and X.25 packet
size (i.e., the method of setting IP MTU based on X.25 packet size
in RFC 877 is not used).
3.6 Every system MUST be able to receive and transmit PDUs up to at
least 1600 octets in length.
For compatibility with existing practice, as well as
interoperability with RFC 877 systems, the default transmit MTU for
IP datagrams SHOULD default to 1500, and MUST be configurable in at
least the range 576 to 1600.
This is done with a view toward a standard default IP MTU of 1500,
used on both local and wide area networks with no fragmentation at
routers. Actually redefining the IP default MTU is, of course,
outside the scope of this specification.
The PDU size (e.g., IP MTU) MUST be configurable, on at least a
per-interface basis. The maximum transmitted PDU length SHOULD be
configurable on a per-peer basis, and MAY be configurable on a per-
encapsulation basis as well. Note that the ability to configure to
send IP datagrams with an MTU of 576 octets and to receive IP
datagrams of 1600 octets is essential to interoperate with existing
implementations of RFC 877 and implementations of this
specification.
Note that on circuits using the Null (multiplexed) encapsulation,
when IP packets are encapsulated using the NLPID of hex CC, then the
default IP MTU of 1500 implies a PDU size of 1501; a PDU size of
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 6]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
1600 implies an IP MTU of 1599. When IP packets are encapsulated
using the NLPID of hex 80 followed by the SNAP header for IP, then
the default IP MTU of 1500 implies a PDU size of 1506; a PDU size of
1600 implies an IP MTU of 1594.
Of course, an implementation MAY support a maximum PDU size larger
than 1600 octets. In particular, there is no limit to the size that
may be used when explicitly configured by communicating peers.
3.7 Each ISO/IEC TR 9577 encapsulation (e.g., IP, CLNP, and SNAP)
requires a separate virtual circuit between systems. In addition,
multiple virtual circuits for a single encapsulation MAY be used
between systems, to, for example, increase throughput (see notes in
section 4.5).
Receivers SHOULD accept multiple incoming calls with the same
encapsulation from a single system. Having done so, receivers MUST
then accept incoming PDUs on the additional circuit(s), and SHOULD
transmit on the additional circuits.
Shedding load by refusing additional calls for the same
encapsulation with a X.25 diagnostic of 0 (DTE clearing) is correct
practice, as is shortening inactivity timers to try to clear
circuits.
Receivers MUST NOT accept the incoming call, only to close the
circuit or ignore PDUs from the circuit.
Because opening multiple virtual circuits specifying the same
encapsulation is specifically allowed, algorithms to prevent virtual
circuit call collision, such as the one found in section 8.4.3.5 of
ISO/IEC 8473 [4], MUST NOT be implemented.
While allowing multiple virtual circuits for a single protocol is
specifically desired and allowed, implementations MAY choose (by
configuration) to permit only a single circuit for some protocols to
some destinations. Only in such a case, if a colliding incoming
call is received while a call request is pending, the incoming call
shall be rejected. Note that this may result in a failure to
establish a connection. In such a case, each system shall wait at
least a configurable collision retry time before retrying. Adding a
random increment, with exponential backoff if necessary, is
recommended.
3.8 Either system MAY close a virtual circuit. If the virtual circuit
is closed or reset while a datagram is being transmitted, the
datagram is lost. Systems SHOULD be able to configure a minimum
holding time for circuits to remain open as long as the endpoints
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 7]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
are up. (Note that holding time, the time the circuit has been open,
differs from idle time.)
3.9 Each system MUST use an inactivity timer to clear virtual circuits
that are idle for some period of time. Some X.25 networks,
including the ISDN under present tariffs in most areas, charge for
virtual circuit holding time. Even where they do not, the resource
SHOULD be released when idle. The timer SHOULD be configurable; a
timer value of "infinite" is acceptable when explicitly configured.
The default SHOULD be a small number of minutes. For IP, a
reasonable default is 90 seconds.
3.10 Systems SHOULD allow calls from unconfigured calling addresses
(presumably not collect calls, however); this SHOULD be a
configuration option. A system accepting such a call will, of
course, not transmit on that virtual circuit if it cannot determine
the protocol (e.g., IP) address of the caller. As an example, on
the DDN this is not a restriction because IP addresses can be
determined algorithmically based upon the caller's X.121 address
[7,9].
Allowing such calls helps work around various "helpful" address
translations done by the network(s), as well as allowing
experimentation with various address resolution protocols.
3.11 Systems SHOULD use a configurable hold-down timer to prevent calls
to failed destinations from being immediately retried.
3.12 X.25 implementations MUST minimally support the following features
in order to conform with this specification: call setup and
clearing and complete packet sequences. For better performance
and/or interoperability, X.25 implementations SHOULD also support:
extended frame and/or packet sequence numbering, flow control
parameter negotiation, and reverse charging.
3.13 The following X.25 features MUST NOT be used: interrupt packets and
the Q bit (indicating qualified data). Other X.25 features not
explicitly discussed in this document, such as fast select and the
D bit (indicating end-to-end significance) SHOULD NOT be used.
Use of the D bit will interfere with use of the M bit (more data
sequences) required for identification of PDUs. In particular, as
subscription to the D bit modification facility (X.25-1988, section
3.3) will prevent proper operation, this user facility MUST NOT be
subscribed.
3.14 ISO/IEC 8208 [11] defines the clearing diagnostic code 249 to
signify that a requested protocol is not supported. Systems MAY
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 8]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
use this diagnostic code when clearing an incoming call because the
identified protocol is not supported. Non-8208 systems more
typically use a diagnostic code of 0 for this function. Supplying
a diagnostic code is not mandatory, but when it is supplied for
this reason, it MUST be either of these two values.
4. General Remarks
The following remarks are not specifications or requirements for
implementations, but provide developers and users with guidelines and
the results of operational experience with RFC 877.
4.1 Protocols above the network layer, such as TCP or TP4, do not
affect this standard. In particular, no attempt is made to open
X.25 virtual circuits corresponding to TCP or TP4 connections.
4.2 Both the circuit and multiplexed encapsulations of SNAP may be used
to contain any SNAP encapsulated protocol. In particular, this
includes using an OUI of 00-00-00 and the two octets of PID
containing an Ethertype [7], or using IEEE 802.1's OUI of hex 00-
80-C2 with the bridging PIDs listed in RFC 1294, "Multiprotocol
Interconnect over Frame Relay" [8]. Note that IEEE 802.1d bridging
can only be performed over a circuit using the Null (multiplexed)
encapsulation of SNAP, because of the necessity of preserving the
order of PDUs (including 802.1d Bridged PDUs) using different SNAP
headers.
4.3 Experience has shown that there are X.25 implementations that will
assign calls with CC CUD to the X.29 PAD (remote login) facility
when the IP layer is not installed, not configured properly, or not
operating (indeed, they assume that ALL calls for unconfigured or
unbound X.25 protocol IDs are for X.29 PAD sessions). Call
originators can detect that this has occurred at the receiver if the
originator receives any X.25 data packets with the Q bit set,
especially if the first octet of these packets is hex 02, 04, or 06
(X.29 PAD parameter commands). In this case, the originator should
clear the call, and log the occurrence so that the misconfigured
X.25 address can be corrected. It may be useful to also use the
hold-down timer (see section 3.11) to prevent further attempts for
some period of time.
4.4 It is often assumed that a larger X.25 data packet size will result
in increased performance. This is not necessarily true: in typical
X.25 networks it will actually decrease performance.
Many, if not most, X.25 networks completely store X.25 data packets
in each switch before forwarding them. If the X.25 network requires
a path through a number of switches, and low-speed trunks are used,
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 9]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
then negotiating and using large X.25 data packets could result in
large transit delays through the X.25 network as a result of the
time required to clock the data packets over each low-speed trunk.
If a small end-to-end window size is also used, this may also
adversely affect the end-to-end throughput of the X.25 circuit. For
this reason, segmenting large IP datagrams in the X.25 layer into
complete packet sequences of smaller X.25 data packets allows a
greater amount of pipelining through the X.25 switches, with
subsequent improvements in end-to-end throughput.
Large X.25 data packet size combined with slow (e.g., 9.6Kbps)
physical circuits will also increase individual packet latency for
other virtual circuits on the same path; this may cause unacceptable
effects on, for example, X.29 connections.
This discussion is further complicated by the fact that X.25
networks are free to internally combine or split X.25 data packets
as long as the complete packet sequence is preserved.
The optimum X.25 data packet size is, therefore, dependent on the
network, and is not necessarily the largest size offered by that
network.
4.5 Another method of increasing performance is to open multiple virtual
circuits to the same destination, specifying the same CUD. Like
packet size, this is not always the best method.
When the throughput limitation is due to X.25 window size, opening
multiple circuits effectively multiplies the window, and may
increase performance.
However, opening multiple circuits also competes more effectively
for the physical path, by taking more shares of the available
bandwidth. While this may be desirable to the user of the
encapsulation, it may be somewhat less desirable to the other users
of the path.
Opening multiple circuits may also cause datagram sequencing and
reordering problems in end systems with limited buffering (e.g., at
the TCP level, receiving segments out of order, when a single
circuit would have delivered them in order). This will only affect
performance, not correctness of operation.
Opening multiple circuits may also increase the cost of delivering
datagrams across a public data network.
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 10]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
4.6 This document does not specify any method of dynamic IP to X.25 (or
X.121) address resolution. The problem is left for further study.
Typical present-day implementations use static tables of varying
kinds, or an algorithmic transformation between IP and X.121
addresses [7,9]. There are proposals for other methods. In
particular, RFC 1183 [10] describes Domain Name System (DNS)
resource records that may be useful either for automatic resolution
or for maintenance of static tables. Use of these method(s) is
entirely experimental at this time.
5. Packet Formats
For each protocol encoding, the diagrams outline the call request and
the data packet format. The data packet shown is the first of a
complete packet (M bit) sequence.
5.1 IP Encapsulation
Call Request:
+----------------+-----------+------------+----+
| GFI, LCN, type | addresses | facilities | CC |
+----------------+-----------+------------+----+
X.25 data packets:
+----------------+------------------------+
| GFI, LCN, I | IP datagram |
+----------------+------------------------+
5.2 CLNP, ES-IS, IS-IS Encapsulation
Call Request:
+----------------+-----------+------------+----+
| GFI, LCN, type | addresses | facilities | 81 |
+----------------+-----------+------------+----+
X.25 data packets:
+----------------+--------------------------------+
| GFI, LCN, I | CLNP, ES-IS, or IS-IS datagram |
+----------------+--------------------------------+
(Note that these datagrams are self-identifying in their
first octet).
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 11]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
5.3 SNAP Encapsulation
Call Request:
+----------------+-----------+------------+----+-----------------+
| GFI, LCN, type | addresses | facilities | 80 | SNAP (5 octets) |
+----------------+-----------+------------+----+-----------------+
X.25 data packets:
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| GFI, LCN, I | Protocol Data Unit (no SNAP header) |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
5.4 Null (Multiplexed) Encapsulation
Call Request:
+----------------+-----------+------------+----+
| GFI, LCN, type | addresses | facilities | 00 |
+----------------+-----------+------------+----+
X.25 data packets:
+----------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| GFI, LCN, I | NLPID (1 octet) | Protocol Data Unit |
+----------------+-----------------+---------------------+
Examples of data packets:
Multiplexed IP datagram:
+----------------+----+-----------------------+
| GFI, LCN, I | CC | IP datagram |
+----------------+----+-----------------------+
Multiplexed CLNP datagram:
+----------------+----+-------------------------+
| GFI, LCN, I | 81 | CLNP datagram |
+----------------+----+-------------------------+
Multiplexed SNAP PDU:
+----------------+----+-----------------+--------------------+
| GFI, LCN, I | 80 | SNAP (5 octets) | Protocol Data Unit |
+----------------+----+-----------------+--------------------+
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 12]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
6. Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
7. References
[1] Korb, J., "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams Over
Public Data Networks", RFC 877, Purdue University, September
1983.
[2] ISO/IEC TR 9577, Information technology - Telecommunications and
Information exchange between systems - Protocol Identification
in the network layer, 1990 (E) 1990-10-15.
[3] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Overview and Architecture", IEEE Standards 802-1990.
[4] ISO/IEC 8473, Information processing systems - Data
communications - Protocol for providing the connectionless- mode
network service, 1988.
[5] ISO/IEC 9542, Information processing systems -
Telecommunications and information exchange between systems -
End system to intermediate system routeing protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless-
mode network service (ISO/IEC 8473), 1988.
[6] Postel, J., Editor., "Internet Protocol - DARPA Internet Program
Protocol Specification", RFC 791, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[7] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1340,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.
[8] Bradley, T., Brown, C., and A. Malis, "Multiprotocol
Interconnect over Frame Relay", RFC 1294, Wellfleet
Communications and BBN Communications, January 1992.
[9] "Defense Data Network X.25 Host Interface Specification",
contained in "DDN Protocol Handbook", Volume 1, DDN Network
Information Center 50004, December 1985.
[10] Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R, and P. Mockapetris,
Editors, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, Transarc,
University of Maryland, Prime Computer, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, October 1990.
[11] ISO/IEC 8208, Information processing systems - Data
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 13]
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 August 1992
communications - X.25 Packet Level Protocol for Data Terminal
Equipment, 1987.
8. Authors' Addresses
Andrew G. Malis
BBN Communications
150 CambridgePark Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: +1 617 873 3419
Email: malis@bbn.com
David Robinson
Computervision Systems Integration
201 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
USA
Phone: +1 617 275 1800 x2774
Email: drb@relay.prime.com
Robert L. Ullmann
Process Software Corporation
959 Concord Street
Framingham, MA 01701
USA
Phone: +1 508 879 6994
Email: ariel@process.com
Malis, Robinson, & Ullmann [Page 14]