RFC38

Network Working Group Stephen M. Wolfe Request for Comments: 38 UCLA CCN

                                                       20 March 1970

                  Comments on Network Protocol
                        from NWG/RFC #36

The proposed protocol does not allow for the possible multiplexing of connections over links.

Generally, this presents no problem, but it might cause loading restrictions in the future. Two cases where routing multiple connections over the same link are apparent:

     a) Where a user has several high speed connections, such as
        between processes that transmit files over the network.
        Assigning these connections to the same link limits the
        percentage of network resources that may be used by that
        user. This becomes particularly important when several
        store-and-forward IMP's are used by the network to effect
        the communication.
     b) When two hosts each have their own independent network and
        desire to allow access to the other hosts's network over
        the ARPA net, a shortage of links may develop. Again, the
        assignment of several connections to the same link could
        help solve the problem.

The following changes in the protocol would make possible the future use of multiplexed links. It is not necessary to add the multiplexing, itself, to the protocol at this time.

     a) The END and RDY must specify relevant sockets in addition to
        the link number. Only the local socket name need be
        supplied.
     b) Problems arise with the RSM and SPD commands. Should they
        refer to an entire link, or just to a given connection?
        Since there is a proposal to modify the RFNM to accommodate
        these commands, it might be better to add another set of
        commands to block and unblock a connection, but I am not
        convinced that that is the best solution.
     c) The destintation socket must be added to the header of each
        message on the data link. Presumably this would consist of
        32 bits immediately after the header and before the marking.

   [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
     [ into the online RFC archives by Karl Reinsch 1/97 ]