RFC 18 UNKNOWN ARPANET · NETWORK ARCHITECTURE · CONTROL LINKS

IMP-IMP and HOST-HOST Control Links

A brief proposal assigning separate links to two kinds of control traffic.

RFC EDITOR

Cerf, V., "IMP-IMP and HOST-HOST Control Links", RFC 18, DOI 10.17487/RFC0018, September 1969, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc18>.

BIBTEX

@misc{rfc18,
  series = {Request for Comments},
  number = 18,
  howpublished = {RFC 18},
  publisher = {RFC Editor},
  doi = {10.17487/RFC0018},
  url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc18},
  author = {V. Cerf},
  title = {{IMP-IMP and HOST-HOST Control Links}},
  pagetotal = 1,
  year = 1969,
  month = sep,
}

PUBLISHED: September 1969
AUTHORS: V. Cerf
STREAM: Legacy
HOST-HOST CONTROL: Link 1
IMP-IMP CONTROL: Link 0
DOI: 10.17487/RFC0018

RFC text

Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗

Network Working Group               University of California Los Angeles
Request for Comments: 18                                       Vint Cerf
Category:                                                 September 1969




It is suggested that link 1 be used for the HOST-HOST control link
and link 0 be used for IMP-IMP control.

This will facilitate communication between Hosts and reduce delays
due to interference with IMP-IMP communications.



    [This RFC has been restored to on-line status by Elmar K. Bins]

ISO Plain Language

On this page

PROBLEMCommunication between hosts could interfere with communication between IMPs.

MECHANISMThe note proposes link 1 for host-to-host control and link 0 for IMP-to-IMP control.

THE PROPOSALThe author says this arrangement would facilitate host communication and reduce interference-related delays for IMP communication.

§1Separate Links for Control Messages

The note suggests assigning link 1 to the host-to-host control link and link 0 to IMP-to-IMP control. It gives these as two distinct assignments for control communication.

The stated reason is to facilitate communication between hosts and reduce delays caused by interference with communication between IMPs.

The proposal gives host control messages and IMP control messages different links. Its stated aim is to make host communication easier and reduce interference-related delays for IMPs.

§1A Short Suggestion

RFC 18 consists of a brief suggestion and its rationale. It does not describe message formats, operating procedures or how the proposed link assignments would be implemented.

The note states which links to use and why. It does not explain the details of putting the proposal into practice.

§1What the Note Establishes

The text proposes link 1 for HOST-HOST control and link 0 for IMP-IMP control. It says that this arrangement would facilitate communication between hosts and reduce delays from interference with IMP-IMP communication.

The document records a two-link assignment proposal and the reason for it. It does not say whether the proposal was later adopted.