Browse Prior Art Database

Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments (RFC1561)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002395D
Original Publication Date: 1993-Dec-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 20 page(s) / 52K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

D. Piscitello: AUTHOR

Abstract

This memo specifies a profile of the ISO/IEC 8473 Connectionless-mode Network Layer Protocol (CLNP, [1]) for use in conjunction with RFC 1347, TCP/UDP over Bigger Addresses (TUBA, [2]). It describes the use of CLNP to provide the lower-level service expected by Transmission Control Protocol (TCP, [3]) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP, [4]). CLNP provides essentially the same datagram service as Internet Protocol (IP, [5]), but offers a means of conveying bigger network addresses (with additional structure, to aid routing).

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 6% of the total text.

Network Working Group D. Piscitello

Request for Comments: 1561 Core Competence

Category: Experimental December 1993

Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments

Status of this Memo

This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet

community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any

kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This memo specifies a profile of the ISO/IEC 8473 Connectionless-mode

Network Layer Protocol (CLNP, [1]) for use in conjunction with RFC

1347, TCP/UDP over Bigger Addresses (TUBA, [2]). It describes the

use of CLNP to provide the lower-level service expected by

Transmission Control Protocol (TCP, [3]) and User Datagram Protocol

(UDP, [4]). CLNP provides essentially the same datagram service as

Internet Protocol (IP, [5]), but offers a means of conveying bigger

network addresses (with additional structure, to aid routing).

While the protocols offer nearly the same services, IP and CLNP are

not identical. This document describes a means of preserving the

semantics of IP information that is absent from CLNP while preserving

consistency between the use of CLNP in Internet and OSI environments.

This maximizes the use of already-deployed CLNP implementations.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Ross Callon (Wellfleet Communications), John Curran

(BBN), Cyndi Jung (3Com), Paul Brooks (UNSW), Brian Carpenter (CERN),

Keith Sklower (Cal Berkeley), Dino Farinacci and Dave Katz (Cisco

Systems), Rich Colella (NIST/CSL) and David Oran (DEC) for their

assistance in composing this text.

Conventions

The following language conventions are used in the items of

specification in this document:

* MUST, SHALL, or MANDATORY -- the item is an absolute

requirement of the specification.

* SHOULD or RECOMMENDED -- the item should generally be

followed for all but exceptional circumstances.

* MAY or OPTIONAL -- the item is truly optional and may be

followed or ignored according to the needs of the

implementor.

1. Terminology

To the extent possible, this document is written in the language of

the Internet. For example, packet is used rather than "protocol data

unit", and "fragment" is used rather than "segment". There are some

terms that carry over from OSI; these are, for the most part, used so

that cross-reference between this document and RFC 994 [6] or ISO/IEC

8473 is not entirely painful. OSI acronyms are for the most part

avoided.

2. Introduction

The goal of this specification is to allow compatible and

interoperable implementations to encapsulate TCP and UDP packets in

CLNP data units. In a sense, it is more of a "hosts requirements"

document for the network layer of TUBA implementations than a

protocol specification. ...