The 'Security Digest' Archives (TM)

Archive: About | Browse | Search | Contributions | Feedback
Site: Help | Index | Search | Contact | Notices | Changes

ARCHIVE: TCP-IP Distribution List - Archives (1982)
DOCUMENT: TCP-IP Distribution List for May 1982 (1 messages, 4331 bytes)
NOTICE: recognises the rights of all third-party works.


Date:      18 May 1982
From:      TCP-IP at BRL
To:        TCP-IP at BRL
Subject:   TCP-IP Digest, Vol 1 #20
TCP/IP Digest            Tuesday, 18 May 1982      Volume 1 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
                  BBN VAX TCP Release for 4.1 BSD UNIX
              Preliminary Stub Gateway Availible for VAX IP
                  Plans for 6502 TCP/IP Implementation
                 "Starting From Scratch" -vs- Front Ends
                     More on Service Specifications
                         LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
          For Research Use Only --- Not for Public Distribution

Date:  7 May 1982 11:27:03 EDT (Friday)
From: Rob Gurwitz <gurwitz@Bbn-Unix>
Subject: BBN VAX TCP release
To: tcp-ip at BRL

BBN has developed an implementation of TCP/IP for DEC's VAX(TM) family of
processors, that runs under the Berkeley 4.1BSD version of UNIX(TM).  The
development effort was funded by DARPA.  

Some important features of the BBN VAX TCP/IP are that it runs in the UNIX 
kernel for enhanced performance, it is a complete implementation of the TCP 
and IP protocols, and provides facilities for direct user access to the IP 
and underlying network protocols.  The IP module supports checksums, option
interpretation, fragmentation and reassembly, extended internet address
support, gateway communication with ICMP, and support of multi-homing
(multiple interfaces and addresses on the same or different networks).  The
TCP supports checksums, sequencing, the ability to pass options through to
the IP level, and advanced windowing and adaptive retransmission algorithms.
Support is also provided for the User Datagram Protocol (UDP).

In addition to the TCP/IP software for the VAX, BBN has developed 
implementations of the TELNET Virtual Terminal Protocol, File Transfer Protocol
(FTP), and Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), for use with TCP.  These 
protocols are operated as user level programs.  Also provided are network 
programming support tools, such as network name/address manipulation
libraries, status, tracing, and debugging tools.

The TCP/IP and higher level protocol software are now available direct from 
BBN.  The software is distributed on a 1600 bpi tar format tape, containing 
the sources and binaries for a 4 .1BSD UNIX kernel containing the network
modifications and the sources and binaries for the higher level protocols and
support software.  Documentation is provided in the form of a set of UNIX
manual pages for the network access device, user programs, and libraries.
In addition, a detailed installation document is provided.  Device drivers
are supplied for the ACC LH/DH-11 IMP interface and the Proteon Assoc. PRONET
Local Network Interface.

The tape is available for a $300.00 duplication fee to Berkeley 4.1BSD
licensees.  To order the tape, contact:

		Ms. Judy Gordon
		Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.
		10 Moulton St.
		Cambridge, MA 02238

You will then receive a copy of the licensing agreement.  Tapes will be
mailed upon receipt of a completed agreeement and the distribution fee.

This tape is supplied as-is to 4.1BSD licensees, with no warranties or
support expressed or implied.  BBN would be pleased to arrange separate
agreements for providing installation assistance and/or software support
services, if desired.

UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories.  VAX is a trademark of Digital
Equipment Corporation.


Date: 10 May 1982 20:57:12-EST
From: Chris Kent <cak@Purdue>
To: tcp-ip at BRL
Subject: Preliminary Stub Gateway


Just a quick note to let you all know that I have implemented an 'ad
hoc' stub (i.e., non-routing) gateway inside the BBN (Rob Gurwitz)
TCP/IP for the VAX. I say 'ad hoc' because the actual specifications of
a \real/ stub gateway are still up in the air; the functionality of my
code is derived from lengthy discussions with Rob and Dave Mills.  The
'gateway' provides rerouting of IP datagrams to and from a local
network, and is transparent to user programs (as any gateway should

My code is installed in the beta-test version of Rob's code -- whenever
the final release becomes available, I'll update it.

All this will probably be obsoleted by Berkeley's next VMUNIX release;
but we need it now, and 4.2 isn't due till at least Fall. I expect
there are other people that would like to connect their local nets to
the internet, so I'm making this code available for the interim.

If an official spec for the stub gateways appears before Berkeley's
code, I'll probably update my code to meet it.



Date: 20 Apr 1982 0038-PST
From: Mark Crispin
Reply-To: Admin.MRC at Su-Score
Subject: 6502 implementation of TCP/IP
To: TCP-IP at Brl
Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence)

     I am considering implementing TCP/IP on the 6502 microprocessor.
I have a 6502-based system (an ATARI) and I know of at least one other
person who would like to run TCP/IP on a 6502 system (an APPLE).  I'd
like to make sure nobody else is doing this before I start.  My
implementation (if I do it) will be assembly coded, and will be modular
so that all operating system dependent code would be in a separate
module with clearly-defined hooks.  I am assuming a TCP/IP link to a
6502 system would be on a modem, although I won't preclude some other
hardware implementation.

     I guess what I'd like to know is how much interest there would be
for this.  I would do a considerably different implementation if it had
commercial potential than if it were just something shared by two or
three people...


Date: 23 Apr 1982 1444-PST
From: PADLIPSKY at Usc-Isi
Subject: Staring from Scratch
To:   wancho at BRL
cc:   tcp-ip at BRL

It occurs to me that rather than start from scratch on an "inboard"
implementation of TCP/IP for a new Host type, you might be better off
choosing to use an "outboard" implementation (i.e., in a "network
front-end" which employs a compact Host-Front End Protocol to attach
to the Host rather than limiting your functionality by attaching in
an emultated known device fashion).  In a recent visit to another of
the Old Network Boys, I discovered that there is at least one firm
doing such a product at present.  As it's not clear to me whether it's
even an announced product yet (and knowing that at least one
other firm would like an excuse to build such a gadget), and not being
able to vouch for their particular H-FP (not meant as a warning; I
simply didn't look at it--it was supposed to be a social visit), I won't
thrust the name upon you, but would be glad to pass it on if you're
at all interested.

(If, by the way, somewhere late in your message to the Digest you
asked for such info, please excuse my over-scrupulousness; I only
looked at the first paragraph or three before deleting
the file and then thought of the NFE suggestion later.)

(If, for that matter, the references to NFE's and H-FP's are
unfamiliar to you and came off rather cryptic, I'd be glad to go
on at length on the topic.)

cheers, map


Date: 14 Apr 1982 23:05:25-PST
FROM: s r kleiman <??? at Berkeley>
TO: ucbvax!TCP-IP at Brl
SUBJECT: Service Specifications

In regard to Walt Hass' response:

I agree that the response primitive in the three arrow model
is virtually useless. In this context, its only value is as
a sort of flow control (i.e.  L_CONNECT.response means; you
can begin sending data primitives now).  In fact, I have
been lobbying to try and have all responses removed from the
spec.  However, I don't think this will happen.

I disagree with your points about layering.  When the
serving layer receives an L_CONNECT.request, sets up a
connection, and passes an CONNECT.indication and
CONNECT.response, the local user layer knows that the
SERVING layer has enough resources for the connection.  It
does not know whether the remote user layer has enough
resources, but I don't believe it is the business of the
serving layer to tell it this.  This is a job for a peer
layer protocol between the USER layers.  This is my
understanding of the intent of the OSI model.

As an example, let us assume, for now, the four arrow model
and that the serving layer is the link layer.  First the
link layer receives a L_CONNECT.request and sends a
connection setup request to its remote peer.  The remote
peer then passes an L_CONNECT.indication to its network
layer.  The link layer is now stopped until the network
layer responds.  Note that this response MAY involve even
higher layers.  The link layer has no way to know how long
to wait for a response, unless some timing information about
the upper layer(s) is built into it.  This is undesirable
from a layer independence viewpoint.  Also note that there
is no machinery in both LLC or LAPB to wait longer than
T1*N2.  Peer protocols, on the other hand, are designed to
have this information.