Organization: China Interactive Publishing Network (http://www.china-pub.com/)
RFC Document Chinese Translation Program (http://www.china-pub.com/compters/emook/aboutemook.htm)
E-mail: Ouyang@china-pub.com
Translator: McSewang Mcsewang@21cn.com)
Translation time: 2001-6-10
Copyright: This Chinese translation copyright belongs to China Interactive Publishing Network. Can be used for non-commercial use free reprint, but must
Keep the translation and copyright information of this document.
Network Working Group Stephen M. Wolfe
RFC-38 UCLA CCN
20 march 1970
NWG / RFC # 36 Note from Network Protocol
(RFC38 Comments on NetWork Protocol from NWG / RFC # 36)
The recommended protocol does not take into account the multiplexed connections that may exist on the link.
In general, this will not have any problems, but will cause line loads to be restricted in the future. On the same link
Two cases of routing multiple-way transport connections are obvious:
a) One situation is that when a user has several high-speed connections, such as between the process of transferring files over the network
Connect, assign these connections to the same line to limit the ratio of network resources that the user can use. when
This is especially important when using several "storage - connect" IMP processes.
b) Another situation is that when two hosts have their own independent networks, and hopes to pass the ARPA network
To get access to the network where the other host is located, the defect of the link will be more obvious. Several connections
Methods assigned to the same link will help resolve this issue again.
The following changes in the protocol will make the application of multiple transmission links in the future possible. At this time, you don't have to transfer multiple traffic.
I will join the protocol.
a) END and RDY fields must be specified in the connection number, simply specify the name of the local socket.
b) A number of questions will be taken from the RSM and SPD commands. They are still only for a given to a given
connection? Since there is already a suggestion to change RFNM to adapt to these commands, then maybe add another
A set of commands to maintain the connection will be better, but I don't think that is the best solution.
c) The target socket must be added to the header of each message of the data link. May be followed behind the header, located in
32 bits before marking.
[This RFC WAS PUT INTO MACHINE READABLE FORM for Entry]
[INTO THE ONLINE RFC Archives By Karl Reinsch 1/97]
RFC38 Comments On NetWork Protocol from NWG / RFC # 36 NWG / RFC # 36 Network Protocol Note
1
RFC Document Chinese Translation Program
