[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 1475

Internet Draft                                            R. L. Ullmann
                                           Process Software Corporation
                                                         March 18, 1993






                      TCP/IP: Internet Version 7

1  Status of this Memo

This memo describes a proposal for the next version of the Internet
protocols.

The protocol described is experimental, and does not represent a
protocol on the formal internet standards track at this writing.

The first version of this memo, describing a possible Internet Version
7 protocol was written by the present author in the summer and fall of
1989, and circulated informally, including to the IESG, in December
1989.  A further informal note on the addressing, called "Toasternet
Part II", was circulated on the IETF mail list during March of 1992.

This document is an Internet Draft.  Internet Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
and its Working Groups.  (Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet Drafts).

Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months.
Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working draft"
or "work in progress."

Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet Draft
directory to learn the current status of this or any other Internet
Draft.

This draft expires on or before September 18, 1993.





















Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  1]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


2  Contents

        1       Status of this Memo  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
        2       Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
        3       Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
        3.1       Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
        3.2       Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
        4       Internet numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        4.1       Is 64 Bits Enough? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        4.2       Why version 7? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        4.3       The version 7 IP address . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
        4.4       AD numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
        4.5       Mapping of version 4 numbers . . . . . . . . . . . 9
        5       IP: Internet datagram protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 9
        5.1       IP datagram header format  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
        5.1.1       Version  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
        5.1.2       Header length  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
        5.1.3       Time to live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
        5.1.4       Total datagram length  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
        5.1.5       Forward route identifier . . . . . . . . . . .  11
        5.1.6       Destination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
        5.1.7       Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
        5.1.8       Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
        5.1.9       Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
        5.1.10      Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
        5.2       Option Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
        5.2.1       Class (C)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
        5.2.2       Copy on fragmentation (F)  . . . . . . . . . .  13
        5.2.3       Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
        5.2.4       Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
        5.2.5       Option data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
        5.3       IP options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
        5.3.1       Null . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
        5.3.2       Fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
        5.3.3       Last Fragment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
        5.3.4       Don't Fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
        5.3.5       Don't Convert  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
        5.4       Forward route identifier . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
        5.4.1       Procedure description  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
        5.4.2       Flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
        5.4.3       Mobile hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
        6       TCP: Transport protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
        6.1       TCP segment header format  . . . . . . . . . . .  18
        6.1.1       Data offset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
        6.1.2       MBZ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.1.3       Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.1.4       Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.1.5       Source port  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.1.6       Destination port.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.1.7       Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.1.8       Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.1.9       Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.1.10      Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
        6.2       Port numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
        6.3       TCP options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20




Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  2]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


        6.3.1       Option Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
        6.3.2       Null . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
        6.3.3       Maximum Segment Size . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
        6.3.4       Urgent Pointer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
        6.3.5       32 Bit rollover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
        7       UDP: User Datagram protocol  . . . . . . . . . . .  21
        7.1       UDP header format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
        7.1.1       Data offset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
        7.1.2       MBZ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
        7.1.3       Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
        7.1.4       Source port  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
        7.1.5       Destination port.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
        7.1.6       Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
        8       ICMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
        8.1       ICMP header format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
        8.2       Conversion failed ICMP message . . . . . . . . .  23
        9       Notes on the domain system . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
        9.1       A records  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
        9.2       PTR zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
        10      Conversion between version 4 and version 7 . . . .  25
        10.1      Version 4 IP address extension option  . . . . .  25
        10.1.1      Option format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
        10.2      Fragmented datagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
        10.3      Where does the conversion happen?  . . . . . . .  26
        10.4      Hybrid IPv4 systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
        10.5      Maximum segment size in TCP  . . . . . . . . . .  27
        10.6      Forwarding and redirects . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
        10.7      Design considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
        10.8      Conversion from IPv4 to IPv7 . . . . . . . . . .  28
        10.9      Conversion from IPv7 to IPv4 . . . . . . . . . .  29
        10.10     Conversion from TCPv4 to TCPv7 . . . . . . . . .  30
        10.11     Conversion from TCPv7 to TCPv4 . . . . . . . . .  30
        10.12     ICMP conversion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
        11      Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
        12      References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
        13      Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33























Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  3]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


3  Introduction

This memo presents the specification for version 7 of the Internet
Protocol, as well as version 7 of the TCP and the user datagram
protocol.  Version 7 has been designed to address several major
problems that have arisen as version 4 has evolved and been deployed,
and to make a major step forward in the datagram switching and
forwarding architecture of the Internet.

The major problems are threefold.  First, the address space of version
4 is now seen to be too small.  While it was viewed as being almost
impossibly large when version 4 was designed, two things have occurred
to create a problem.  The first is a success crisis:  the internet
protocols have been more widely used and accepted than their designers
anticipated.  Also, technology has moved forward, putting
microprocessors into devices not anticipated except as future dreams a
decade ago.

The second major problem is a perceived routing explosion.  The
present routing architecture of the internet calls for routing each
organization's network independently.  It is becoming increasingly
clear that this does not scale to a universal internet.  While it is
possible to route several billion networks in a flat, structureless
domain, it is not desireable.

There is also the political administrative issue of assigning network
numbers to organizations.  The version 4 administrative system calls
for organizations to request network assignments from a single
authority.  While to some extent this has been alleviated by reserving
blocks to delegated assignments, the address space is not large enough
to do this in the necessary general case, with large blocks allocated
to (e.g.) national authority.

The third problem is the increasing bandwidth of the networks and of
the applications possible on the network.  The TCP, while having
proven useful on an unprecedented range of network speeds, is now the
limiting factor at the highest speeds, due to restrictions of window
size, sequence-space, and port numbers.  These limitations can all be
addressed by increasing the sizes of the relevent fields.

There is also an opportunity to move the technology forward, and take
advantage of a combination of the best features of the hop-by-hop
connectionless forwarding of version 4 (and CLNP) as well as the
pre-established paths of version 5 (and, e.g., the OSI CONS).

Internet Version 7 includes four major areas of improvement, while at
the same time retaining interoperation with version 4 with a small
amount of conversion knowledge imposed on version 7 hosts and routers.

      o  It increases the address fields to 64 bits, with sufficient
         space for visible future expansion of the internet.








Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  4]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


      o  It adds a numbering layer for administrations, above the
         organization or network layer, as well as providing more
         space for subnetting within organizations.

      o  It increases the range of speeds and network path delays over
         which the TCP will operate satisfactorily, as well as the
         number of transactions in bounded time that can be served by
         a host.

      o  Finally, it provides a forward route identifier in each
         datagram, to support extremely fast path, circuit, or
         flow-based forwarding, or any desired combination, while
         preserving hop-by-hop connectivity.


The result is not just a movement sideways, deploying a new network
layer protocol to patch current problems.  It is a significant step
forward for network layer technology,

3.1  Objectives

The following are some of the objectives of the design.

  o  Use what has been learned from the IP version 4 protocol, fixing
     things that are troublesome, and not fixing that which is not
     broken.

  o  Retain the essential "look and feel" of the Internet protocol
     suite.  It has been very successful, and one doesn't argue with
     success.

  o  Not introduce concepts that the Internet has shown do not belong
     in the protocol definition.  Best example:  we do not want to add
     any kind of routing information into the addressing, other than
     the administrative hierarchy that has sometimes proved useful.
     Note that the one feature in version 4 addressing (the class
     system) designed to aid routing is now the most serious single
     problem.

  o  Allow current hosts to interoperate, if not universally, at least
     within an organization or larger area for the indefinite future.
     There will be version 4 hosts for 10-15 years into the future,
     the Internet must remain on good terms with them.

  o  Likewise, we must not impose the new version, telling sites they
     must convert to stay connected.  People resist imposed solutions.
     It must not be marketed as something different from IPv4; the
     differences must be down-played at every opportunity.

  o  The design must allow individual hosts and routers to be upgraded
     effectively at random, with no transition plan constraints.








Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  5]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


  o  The design must not require renumbering the Internet.  The
     administrative work already accomplished is immense, if it is to
     be done again it will be in assigning NSAPs.

  o  It must allow IPv4 hosts to interoperate without any reduction in
     function, without any modification to their software or
     configuration.  (Universal connectivity will be lost by IPv4
     hosts, but they must be able to continue operating within their
     organization at least.)

  o  It must permit network layer state-free translation of datagrams
     between IPv4 and IPv7; this is important to the previous point,
     and essential to early testing and transitional deployment.

  o  It must be a competent alternative to CLNP.

  o  It must not involve changing the semantics of the network layer
     service in any way that invalidates the huge amount of work that
     has gone into understanding how TCP (for example) functions in
     the net, and the implementation of that understanding.

  o  It must be defined Real Soon; the window of opportunity is almost
     closed.  It will take vendors 3 years to deploy from the time the
     standard is rock-solid concrete.


I believe all of these are accomplishable in a consistent,
well-engineered solution, and all are essential to the survival of the
Internet.

3.2  Philosophy

Protocols should become simpler as they evolve.


























Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  6]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


4  Internet numbers

The version 4 numbering system has proven to be very flexible,
(mostly) expandable, and simple.  In short:  it works.  There are two
problems, neither serious when this specification was first developed
in 1988 and 1989, but have as expected become more serious:

      o  The division into network, and then subnet, is insufficient.
         Almost all sites need a network assignment large enough to
         subnet.  At the top of the hierarchy, there is a need to
         assign administrative domains.

      o  As bit-packing is done to accomplish the desired network
         structure, the 32 bit limit causes more and more aggravation.


4.1  Is 64 Bits Enough?

Consider:  (thought experiment) 32 bits presently numbers "all" of the
computers in the world, and another 32 bits could be used to number
all of the bytes of on-line storage on each computer.  (Most have a
lot less than 4 gigabytes on-line, the ones that have more could be
notionally assigned more than one address.)

So:  64 bits is enough to number every byte of online storage in
existence today, in a hierarchical structured numbering plan.

Another way of looking at 64 bits:  it is more than 2 billion
addresses for each person on the planet.  Even if I have
microprocessors in my shirt buttons I'm not going to have that many.
32 bits, on the other hand, was never going to be sufficient:  there
are more than 2^32 people.

4.2  Why version 7?

It was clearly recognized at the start of this project in 1988 that
making the address 64 bits implies a new IP header format, which was
called either "TP/IX" or "IP version 7"; there wasn't anything magic
about the number 7, I made it up.  Version 4 is the familiar current
version of IP.  Version 5 is the experimental ST (Stream) protocol.
ST-II, a newer version of ST, uses the same version number, something
I was not aware of until recently; I suspected it might have been
allocated 6.  Besides, I liked 7.

Apparently (as reported by Bob Braden) the IAB followed much the same
logic, and may have had the idea planted by the mention of version 7
in the "Toasternet Part II" memo.  The IAB in June 1992 floated a
proposal that CLNP, or a CLNP-based design, be Internet Version 7.
(And promptly got themselves toasted.) However, close inspection of
the bits shows that CLNP is clearly version 8.









Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  7]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


4.3  The version 7 IP address

The Version 7 IP 64 bit address looks like:

    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
    |      Admin Domain     |        Network        |     Host      |
    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+


Note:  the boundary between "network" and "host" is no more fixed than
it is today; each (sub)network will have its own mask.  Just as the
mask today can be anywhere from FF00 0000 (8/24) to FFFF FFFC (30/2),
the mask for the 64 bit address can reasonably be FFFF FF00 0000 0000
(24/40) to FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFC (62/2).

The AD (Administrative domain), identifies an administration which may
be a service provider, a national administration, or a large
multi-organization (e.g.  a government).  The idea is that there
should not be more than a few hundred of these at first, and
eventually thousands or tens of thousands at most.  (But note that we
do not introduce a hard limit of 2^16 here; this estimate may be off
by a few orders of magnitude.) Since only 1/4th of the address space
is initially used (first two bits are 10), the remainder can then be
allocated in the future with more information available.

Most individual organizations would not be ADs.  In the short term,
ADs are known to the "core routing"; it pays to keep the number
smallish, a few thousand given current routing technology.  In the
long term, this is not necessary.  Big administrations (i.e.  with
tens of millions of networks) get small blocks where needed, or
additional single AD numbers when needed.

While the AD may be used for last resort routing (with a 24/40 mask),
it is primarily only an administrative device.  Most routing will be
done on the entire 48 bit AD+network number, or sub and super-sets of
those numbers.  (I.e. masks between about 32/32 and 56/8.)

Some ADs (e.g. NSF) may make permanent assignments; others (such as a
telephone company defining a network number for each subscriber line)
may tie the assignment to such a subscription.  But in no case does
this require traffic to be routed via the AD.

4.4  AD numbers

AD numbers are allocated out of the same numbering space as network
numbers.  This means that a version 4 address can be distinguished
from the first 32 bits of a version 7 address.  This is useful to help
prevent the inadvertent use of the first half of the longer address by
a version 4 host.

There is a non-trivial amount of software that assumes that an "int"
is the same size and shape as an IP address, and does things like
"ipaddr = *(int *)ptr".  This usage has always been incorrect, but
does occur with disturbing frequency.  As IPv7 8 byte addresses appear
in the application layers, this software will find those addresses




Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  8]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


unreachable; this is preferable to interacting with a random host.

ADs are allocated in the range 96.0.0 to 126.255.255, using the top
1/4 of the version 4 class A space.  It is probably best to allocate
the first component downwards from 126, so that the boundary between
class A and AD can be moved if desired later.  This initial allocation
provides for 2031616 ADs, many more than there should be even in full
deployment.

Eventually, both AD and network will use the full 24 bit space
available to them.  Knowledge of the AD range should not be coded into
software.  If it was coded in, that software would break when the
entire 24 bit space is used for ADs.  (This lesson should have been
learned from CIDR.)

4.5  Mapping of version 4 numbers

Initially, all existing Internet numbers are defined as belonging to
the NSF/Internet AD, number 126.0.0.

The mapping from/to version 4 IP addresses:

    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
    |      Admin Domain     |        Network        |     Host      |
    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
     [  fixed at 7E 00 00  ] [ 1st 24 bits of V4 IP]   [1]   [last 8]


So, for example, 192.42.95.15 (V4) becomes 126.0.0.192.42.95.1.15.

And the "standard" loopback interface address becomes
126.0.0.127.0.0.1.1 (I can see explaining that in 2015 to someone born
in 1995.)

The present protocol multicast (126.0.0.224.x.y.1.z) and loopback
addresses are permanently allocated in the NSF AD.

5  IP:  Internet datagram protocol

The Internet datagram protocol is revised to expand some fields (most
notably the addresses), while removing and relegating to options all
fields not universally useful (imperative) in every datagram in every
environment.

This results in some simplification, a length less than twice the size
of IPv4 even though most fields are doubled in size, and an expanded
space for options.

There is also a change in the option philosophy from IPv4:  it
specified that implementation of options was not optional, what was
optional was the existence of options in any given datagram.  This is
changed in IPv7:  no option need be implemented to be fully
conformant.  However, implementations must understand the option
classes; and a future Host Requirements specification for hosts and
routers used in the "connected Internet" may require some options in




Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page  9]

Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


its profile, e.g. Fragment would probably be required.

Digression:  In IPv4, options are often "considered harmful".  It is
the opinion of the present author that this is because they are rarely
needed, and not designed to be processed rapidly on most
architectures.  This leads to little or no attempt to improve
performance in implementations, while at the same time enormous effort
is dedicated to optimization of the no-option case.  IPv7 is expected
to be different on both counts.

Fields are always aligned on their own size; the 64 bit fields on 64
bit intervals from the start of the datagram.

Options are all 32 bit aligned, and the null option can be used to
push a subsequent option (or the transport layer header) into 64 bit
or 64+32 off-phase alignment as desired.

5.1  IP datagram header format


     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |version|     header length     |        time to live           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        total datagram length                                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +        forward route identifier                               +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +        destination address                                    +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +        source address                                         +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        protocol               |           checksum            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        options                                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


A description of each field follows.

5.1.1  Version

This document describes version 7 of the protocol.









Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 10]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


5.1.2  Header length

The header length is a 12 bit count of the number of 32 bit words in
the IPv7 header.  This allows a header to be (theoretically at least)
up to 16380 bytes in length.

5.1.3  Time to live

The time to live is a 16 bit count, nominally in 1/16 seconds.  Each
hop is required to decrement TTL by at least one.

This definition should allow continuation of the useful (even though
not entirely valid) interpretation of TTL as a hop count, while we
move to faster networks and routers.  (The most familiar use is by
"traceroute", which really ought to be directly implemented by one or
more ICMP messages.)

The scale factor converts the usual version 4 default TTL into a
larger number of hops.  This is desireable because the forward route
architecture of version 7 enables the construction of simpler, faster
switches, and this may cause the network diameter to increase.

5.1.4  Total datagram length

The 32 bit length of the entire datagram in octets.  A datagram can
therefore be up to 4294967295 bytes in overall length.  Particular
networks will normally impose lower limits.

5.1.5  Forward route identifier

The identifier from the routing protocol to be used by the next hop
router to find its next hop.  (A more complete description is given
below.)

5.1.6  Destination

The 64 bit IPv7 destination address.

5.1.7  Source

The 64 bit IPv7 source address.

5.1.8  Protocol

The transport layer protocol, e.g. TCP is 6.  The present code space
for this layer of demultiplexing is about half full.  Expanding it to
16 bits, allowing 65535 registered "transport" layers seems prudent.

5.1.9  Checksum

The checksum is a 16 bit checksum of the entire IP header, using the
familiar algorithm used in IPv4.







Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 11]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


5.1.10  Options

Options may follow.  They are variable length, and always 32 bit
aligned, as discussed previously.

5.2  Option Format

Each option begins with a 32 bit header:

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | C |F|    type                 |   length                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        option data                 ...          |   padding   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


A description of each field:

5.2.1  Class (C)

This field tells implementations what to do with datagrams containing
options they do not understand.  No implementation is required to
implement (i.e.  understand) any given option by the TCP/IP
specification itself.

Classes:

    0        use or forward and include this option unmodified
    1        use this datagram, but do not forward the datagram
    2        discard, or forward and include this option unmodified
    3        discard this datagram


A host receiving a datagram addressed to itself will use it if there
are no unknown options of class 2 or 3.  A router receiving a datagram
not addressed to it will forward the datagram if and only if there are
no unknown options of class 1 or 3.  (The astute reader will note that
the bits can also be seen as having individual interpretations, one
allowing use even if unknown, one allowing forwarding if unknown.)

Note that classes 0 and 2 are imperative:  if the datagram is
forwarded, the unknown option must be included.

Class and type are entirely orthogonal, different implementations
might use different classes for the same option, except where
restricted by the option definition.

Also note that for options that are known (implemented by) the host or
router, the class has no meaning; the option definition totally
determines the behavior.  (Although it should be noted that the option
might explicitly define a class dependent behavior.)






Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 12]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


5.2.2  Copy on fragmentation (F)

If the F bit is set, this option must be copied into all fragments
when a datagram is fragmented.  If the F bit is reset (zero), the
option must only be copied into the first (zero-offset) fragment.

5.2.3  Type

The type field identifies the particular option, types being
registered as well known values in the internet.  A few of the options
with their types are described below.

5.2.4  Length

Length of the option data, in bytes.

5.2.5  Option data

Variable length specified by the length field, plus 0-3 bytes of zeros
to pad to a 32 bit boundary.  Fields within the option data that are
64 bits long are normally placed on the assumption that the option
header is off-phase aligned, the usual case when the option is the
only one present, and immediately follows the IP header.

5.3  IP options

The following sections describe the options defined to emulate IPv4
features, or necessary in the basic structure of the protocol.

5.3.1  Null

The null option, type 0, provides for a space filler in the option
area.  The data may be of any size, including 0 bytes (perhaps the
most useful case.)

It may be used to change alignment of the following options or to
replace an option being deleted, by setting type to 0 and class to 0,
leaving the length and content of the data unmodified.  (Note that
this implies that options must not contain "secret" data, relying on
class 3 to prevent the data from leaving the domain of routers that
understand the option.)

Null is normally class 0, and need not be implemented to serve its
function.

5.3.2  Fragment

Fragment (type 1) indicates that the datagram is part of a complete IP
datagram.  It is always class 2.

The data consists of (one of) the 64 bit IP address(es) of the router
doing the fragmentation, a 64 bit datagram ID generated by that
router, and a 32 bit fragment offset.  The IDs should be generated so
as to be very likely unique over a period of time larger than the TCP
MSL (maximum segment lifetime).  (The TCP ISN (initial sequence




Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 13]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


number) generator might be used to initialize the ID generator in a
router.)

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | C |F|    type                 |   length                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +          fragmenting router IP address                        +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +          datagram ID                                          +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          offset                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


If a datagram must be refragmented, the original 128 bit address+ID is
preserved, so that the datagram can be reassembled from any sufficient
set of the resulting fragments.  The 64 bits fields are positioned so
that they are aligned in the usual case of the fragment option
following the IP header.

A router implementing Fragment (doing fragmentation) must recognize
the Don't Fragment option.

5.3.3  Last Fragment

Last Fragment (type 2) has the same format as Fragment, but implies
that this datagram is the last fragment needed to reassemble the
original datagram.

Note that an implementation can reasonably add arriving datagrams with
Fragment to a cache, and then attempt a reassembly when a datagram
with Last Fragment arrives (and the the total length is known); this
will work well when datagrams are not reordered in the network.

5.3.4  Don't Fragment

This option (type 3, class 0) indicates that the datagram may not be
fragmented.  If it can not be forwarded without fragmentation, it is
discarded, and the appropriate ICMP message sent.  (Unless, of course,
the datagram is an ICMP message.) There is no data present.

5.3.5  Don't Convert

The Don't Convert option prohibits conversion from IPv7 to IPv4
protocol, requiring instead that the datagram be discarded and an ICMP
message sent (conversion failed/don't convert set).  It is type 4,
usually class 0, and must be implemented by any router implementing
conversion.  A host is under no such constraint; like any protocol
specification, only the "bits on the wire" can be specified, the host




Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 14]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


receiving the datagram may convert it as part of its procedure.  There
is no data present in this option.

5.4  Forward route identifier

Each IP datagram carries a 64 bit field, called "forward route
identifier", that is updated (if the information is available) at each
hop.  This field's value is derived from the routing protocol (e.g.
RAP [ID-RAP]).  It is used to expedite routing decisions by preserving
knowledge where possible between consecutive routers.  It can also be
used to make datagrams stay within reserved flows and mobile-host
tunnels where required.

5.4.1  Procedure description

Consider 3 routers, A, B, and C.  Traffic is passing through them,
between two other hosts (or networks), X and Y, packets are going
XABCY and YCBAX.  Consider only one direction:  routing info flowing
from C to A, to provide a route from A to C.  The same thing will be
happening in the other direction.

An explanation of the notation:

  R(r,d,i,h)    A route that means: "from router r, to go toward final
                destination d, replace the forward route identifier in
                the packet with i, and take next hop h."

  Ri(r,d)       An opaque (outside of router r) identifier, that can be
                used by r to find R(r,d,...).

  Flowi(r,rt)   An opaque (outside of router r) identifier, that router
                r can use to find a flow or tunnel with which the datagram
                is associated, and from that the route rt on which the
                flow or tunnel is built, as well as the Flowi() for the
                subsequent hop.

  Ri(Dgram)     The forward route identifier in a datagram.


Router C announces a route R(C,Y,0,Y) to router B.  It includes in it
an identifier Ri(C,Y) internal to C, that will allow C to find the
route rapidly.  (A table index, or an actual memory address.)

Router B creates a route R(B,Y,Ri(C,Y),C) via router C, it announces
it to A, including an identifier Ri(B,Y), internal to B, and used by A
as an opaque object.

Router A creates a route R(A,Y,Ri(B,Y),B) via router B.  It has no one
to announce it to.

Now:  X originates a datagram addressed to Y.  It has no routing
information, and sets Ri(Dgram) to zero.  It forwards the datagram to
router A (X's default gateway).






Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 15]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


A finds no valid Ri(Dgram), and looks up the destination (Y) in its
routing tables.  It finds R(A,Y,Ri(B,Y),B), sets Ri(Dgram) <- Ri(B,Y),
and forwards the datagram to B.

Router B looks at Ri(Dgram) which directly identifies the next hop
route R(B,Ri(C,Y),C), sets Ri(Dgram) <- Ri(C,Y) and forwards it to
router C.

Router C looks at Ri(Dgram) which directly locates R(C,0,Y), sets
Ri(Dgram) <- 0 and forwards to Y.

Y recognizes its own address in Dest(Dgram), ignores Ri(Dgram).

Of course, the routers will validate the Ri's received, particularily
if they are memory addresses (e.g.  M(a) < Ri < M(b), Ri mod N == 0),
and probably check that the route in fact describes the destination of
the datagram.  If the Ri is invalid, the router must use the ordinary
method of finding a route (i.e.  what it would have done if Ri was 0),
and silently ignore the invalid Ri.

When a route has been aggregated at some router, implicitly or
explicitly, it will find that the incoming Ri(Dgram) at most can
identify the aggregation, and it must make a decision; the forwarded
datagram then contains the Ri for the specific route.  (Note this may
happen well upstream of the point at which the routes actually
diverge.)

This allows all cooperating routers to make immediate forwarding
decisions, without any searching of tables or caches once the datagram
has entered the routing domain.  If the host participates in the
routing, at least to the extent of acquiring the initial Ri required
from the first router, then only routers that have done aggregations
need make decisions.  (If the routing changes with datagrams in
flight, some router will be required to make a decision to re-rail
each datagram.)

5.4.2  Flows

If a "flow" is to be set up, the identifiers are replaced by
Flowi(router,route), where each router's structure for the flow
contains a pointer to the route on which the flow is built.  Datagrams
can drop out of the flow at some point, and can be inserted either by
the originating host or by a cooperating router near the originator.
Since the forward route identifier field is opaque to the sending
router, and implicitly meaningful only to the next hop router, use for
flows (or similar optimizations) need not be otherwise defined by the
protocol.  (One presumes that a router issuing both Ri's and Flowi's
will take care to make sure that it can distinguish them by some
private method.)

If a flow has been set up by a restricted target RAP route
announcement, it is no different from a route in the implementation.
If this announcement originates from the host itself, the Ri in
incoming datagrams can be used to determine whether they followed the
flow, or to optimize delivery of the datagrams to the next layer




Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 16]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


protocol.

5.4.3  Mobile hosts

First, a definition:  A "mobile host" is a host that can move around,
connecting via different networks at different times, while
maintaining open TCP connections.  It is distinguished from a
"portable host", which is simply a host that can appear in various
places in the net, without continuity.  A portable host can be
implemented by assigning a new address for each location (more or less
automatically), and arranging to update the domain system.  Supporting
truly mobile hosts is the more interesting problem.

To implement mobile host support in a general way, either some layer
of the protocol suite must provide network-wide routing, or the
datagrams must be tunnelled from the "home" network of the host to its
present location.  In the real network, some combination of these is
probable:  most of the net will forward datagrams toward the home
network, and then the datagrams will follow a specific host route to
the mobile host.

The requirement on the routing system is that it must be able to
propagate a host route at least to the home network; any other
distribution is useful optimization.  When a host route is propagated
by RAP as a targeted route, and the routers use the resulting Ri's,
the datagram follows an effective tunnel to the mobile host.  (Not a
real tunnel, in the strict sense; the datagrams are following an
actual route at the network protocol layer.)

As explained in RAP [ID-RAP], a targeted route can be issued when
desired; in particular, it can be triggered by the establishment of a
TCP connection or by the arrival of datagrams that do not carry an Ri
indicating that they have followed a (non-tunnel) route.


























Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 17]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


6  TCP:  Transport protocol

Internet version 7 expands the sizes of the sequence and
acknowledgement fields, the window, and the port numbers.  This is to
remove limitations in version 4 that begin to restrict throughput at
(for example) the bandwidth of FDDI and round trip delay of more than
60 milliseconds.  At gigabit speeds and delays typical of
international links, the version 4 TCP would be a serious limitation.

The port numbers are also expanded.  This alleviates the problem of
going through the entire port number range with a rapid sequence of
transactions in less than the lifetime of datagrams in the network.

6.1  TCP segment header format

The 64 bit fields (sequence and acknowledgement) in the TCP header are
off-phase aligned, in anticipation of the usual case of the TCP header
following the 7 32-bit word IP header.  If IP options add up to an odd
number of 32 bit words, a null option may be added to push the
transport header to off-phase alignment.

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  data offset  | MBZ |A|P|R|S|F|           checksum            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        source port                                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        destination port                                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +        sequence number                                        +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +        acknowledgement number                                 +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        window                                                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        options                          ...                   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


A description of each field:

6.1.1  Data offset

An 8 bit count of the number of 32 bit words in the TCP header,
including any options.









Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 18]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


6.1.2  MBZ

Reserved bits, must be zero, and must be ignored.

6.1.3  Flags

These are the protocol state flags, use exactly as in TCPv4, except
that there is no urgent data flag.

6.1.4  Checksum

This is a 16 bit checksum of the segment.  The pseudo-header used in
the checksum consists of the destination address, the source address,
the protocol field (constant 6 for TCP), and the 32 bit length of the
TCP segment.

6.1.5  Source port

The source port number, a 32 bit identifier.  See the section on port
numbers below.

6.1.6  Destination port.

The 32 bit destination port number.

6.1.7  Sequence

A 64 bit sequence number, the sequence number of the first octet of
user data in the segment.

The ISN (Initial Sequence Number) generator used in TCPv4 is used in
TCPv7, with the 32 bit value loaded into both the high and low 32 bits
of the TCPv7 sequence number.  This provides reasonable behavior when
the 32 bit rollover option is used (see below) for TCPv4
interoperation.  V7 hosts must implement the full 64 bit sequence
number rollover.

6.1.8  Acknowledgement

The 64 bit acknowledgement number, acknowledging receipt of octets up
to but not including the octet identified.  Valid if the A flag is
set, if A is reset (0), this field should be zero, and must be
ignored.

6.1.9  Window

The 32 bit offered window.

6.1.10  Options

TCP options, some of which are documented below.








Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 19]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


6.2  Port numbers

Port numbers are divided into several ranges:  (all numbers are
decimal)

    0             reserved
    1-32767       Internet registered ("well-known") protocols
    32768-98303   reserved, to allow TCPv7-TCPv4 conversion
    98304 up      dynamic assignment


It must also be remembered that hosts are free to dynamically assign
for active connections any port not actually in use by that host:
hosts must not reject connections because the "client" port is in the
registered range.

6.3  TCP options

6.3.1  Option Format

Each option begins with a 32 bit header:

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        type                   |   length                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        option data                 ...          |   padding   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


6.3.2  Null

The null option (type = 0), is to be ignored.

6.3.3  Maximum Segment Size

Maximum segment size (type = 1) specifies the largest segment that the
other TCP should send, in terms of the number of data octets.  When
sent on a SYN segment, it is mandatory; if sent on any other segment
it is advisory.

Data is one 32 bit word specifying the size in octets.

6.3.4  Urgent Pointer

The urgent pointer (type = 2) emulates the urgent field in TCPv4.  Its
presence is equivalent to the U flag being set.  The data is a 64 bit
sequence number identifying the last octet of urgent data.  (Not an
offset, as in v4.)









Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 20]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


6.3.5  32 Bit rollover

The 32 bit rollover option (type = 3) indicates that only the low
order 32 bits of the sequence and acknowledgement packets are
significant in the packet.

This is necessary because a converting internet layer gateway has no
retained state, and cannot properly set the high order bits.  This
option must be implemented by version 7 hosts that want to
interoperate with version 4 hosts.

7  UDP:  User Datagram protocol

The user datagram protocol is also expanded to include larger port
numbers, for reasons similar to the TCP.

7.1  UDP header format


     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  data offset  |     MBZ       |           checksum            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        source port                                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        destination port                                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        options                          ...                   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


A description of each field:

7.1.1  Data offset

An 8 bit count of the number of 32 bit words in the UDP header,
including any options.

7.1.2  MBZ

Reserved bits, must be zero, and must be ignored.

7.1.3  Checksum

This is a 16 bit checksum of the datagram.  The pseudo-header used in
the checksum consists of the destination address, the source, address,
and the protocol field (constant 17 for UDP), and the 32 bit length of
the user datagram.










Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 21]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


7.1.4  Source port

The source port number, a 32 bit identifier.  See the section on TCP
port numbers above.

7.1.5  Destination port.

The 32 bit destination port number.

7.1.6  Options

UDP options, none are presently defined.

8  ICMP

The ICMP protocol is very similar to ICMPv4, in some cases not
requiring any conversion.

The complication is that IP datagrams are nested within ICMP messages,
and must be converted.  This is discussed later.

8.1  ICMP header format


     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     type      |     code      |           checksum            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        type-specific parameter                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        type-specific data               ...                   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Type and code are well-known values, defined in [RFC792].  The codes
have meaning only within a particular type, they are not orthogonal.

The next 32 bit word is usually defined for the specific type,
sometimes it is unused.

For many types, the data consists of a nested IP datagram, usually
truncated, which is a copy of the datagram causing the event being
reported.  In IPv4, the nested datagram consists of the IP header, and
another 64 bits (at least) of the original datagram.

For IPv7, the nested datagram must include the IP header plus 96 bits
of the remaining datagram (thus including the port numbers within TCP
and UDP), and should include the first 256 bytes of the datagram.
I.e.  in most cases where the original datagram was not large, it will
return the entire datagram.








Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 22]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


8.2  Conversion failed ICMP message

The introduction of network layer conversion requires a new message
type, to report conversion errors.  Note that an invalid datagram
should result in the sending of some other ICMP message (e.g.
parameter problem) or the silent discarding of the datagram.  This
message is only sent when a valid datagram cannot be converted.

Note:  implementations are not expected to, and should not, check the
validity of incoming datagrams just to accomplish this; it simply
means that an error detected during conversion that is known to be an
actual error in the incoming datagram should be reported as such, not
as a conversion failure.

Note that the conversion failed ICMP message may be sent in either the
IPv4 or IPv7 domain; it is a valid ICMP message type for IPv4.

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     type      |     code      |           checksum            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        pointer to problem area                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        copy of datagram that could not be converted ....      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


The type for Conversion Failed is 31.

The codes are:

        0       Unknown/unspecified error
        1       Don't Convert option present
        2       Unknown mandatory option present
        3       Known unsupported option present
        4       Unsupported transport protocol
        5       Overall length exceeded
        6       IP header length exceeded
        7       Transport protocol > 255
        8       Port conversion out of range
        9       Transport header length exceeded
        10      32 Bit Rollover missing and ACK set
        11      Unknown mandatory transport option present


The use of code 0 should be avoided, any other condition found by
implementors should be assigned a new code requested from IANA.  When
code 0 is used, it is particularily important that the pointer be set
properly.









Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 23]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


The pointer is an offset from the start of the original datagram to
the beginning of the offending field.

The data is part of the datagram that could not be converted.  It must
be at least the IP and transport headers, and must include the field
pointed to by the previous parameter.  For code 4, the transport
header is probably not identifiable; the data should include 256 bytes
of the original datagram.

9  Notes on the domain system

9.1  A records

Address records will be added to the IN (Internet) zone with IPv7
addresses for all hosts as IPv7 is deployed.  Eventually the IPv4
addresses will be removed.  As mentioned above, the AD space is
initially assigned so that the first 4 octets of a v7 address cannot
be confused with a v4 address (or, rather, the confusion will be to no
effect.)

For example:

DELTA.Process.COM.      A       192.42.95.68
                        A       126.0.0.192.42.95.1.68


It is important that the A record be used, to avoid the cache
consistancy problem that would arise when different records had
different remaining TTLs.

Note that if an unmodified version of the more popular public domain
nameserver is a secondary for a zone containing IPv7 addresses, it
will erroneously issue RRs with only the first four bytes.  (I.e.
126.0.0.192 in the example.) This is another reason to ensure that the
AD numbers are initially reserved out of the IPv4 network number
space.  Eventually, zones with IPv7 addresses would be expected to be
served only by upgraded servers.

9.2  PTR zone

The inverse (PTR) zone is .#, with the IPv7 address (reversed).  I.e.
just like .IN-ADDR.ARPA, but with .# instead.

This respects the difference in actual authority:  the NSF/DDN NIC is
the authority for the entire space rooted in .IN-ADDR.ARPA.  in the v4
Internet, while in the new Internet it holds the authority only for
the AD 0.0.126.#.  (Plus, of course, any other ADs assigned to it over
time.)











Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 24]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


10  Conversion between version 4 and version 7

As noted in the description of datagram format, it is possible to
provide a mostly-transparent bridge between version 4 and version 7.

This discusses TCP and ICMP at the session/transport layer; UDP is a
subset of the TCP conversion.  Most protocols at this layer will
probably need no translation; however it will probably be necessary to
specify exactly which will have translations done.

New protocols at the session/transport layer defined over IPv7 should
have protocol numbers greater than 255, and will not be translated to
IPv4.

Most of the translations should consist of copying various fields,
verifying fixed values in the datagram being translated, and setting
fixed values in the datagram being produced.  In general, the checksum
must be verified first, and then a new checksum computed for the
generated datagram.

10.1  Version 4 IP address extension option

A new option is defined for IP version 4, to carry the extended
addresses of IPv7.  This will be particularily useful in the initial
testing of IPv7, during a time when most of the fabric of the internet
is IPv4.  An IPv7 host will be able to connect to another IPv7 host
anywhere in the internet even though most of the paths and routers are
IPv4, and still use the full addressing.  This will continue to work
until non-unique network numbers are assigned, by which time most of
the infrastructure should be IPv7.

10.1.1  Option format


    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  type (147)   | length = 10   |     source IPv7 AD number     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  ...          | src 7th octet |     destination IPv7 AD       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  number ...   | dst 7th octet |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


The source and destination are in IPv4 order (source first), for
consistancy.  The type code is 147.

10.2  Fragmented datagrams

Datagrams that have been fragmented must be reassembled by the
converting host or router before conversion.  Where the conversion is
being done by the destination host (i.e.  the case of a v7 host
receiving v4 datagrams), this is similar to the present fragmentation
model.






Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 25]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


When it is being done by an intermediate router (acting as an
internetwork layer gateway) the router should use all of source,
destination, and datagram ID for identification of IPv4 fragments;
note that destination is used implicitly in the usual reassembly at
the destination.  When reassembling an IPv7 datagram, the 128 bit
fragment ID is used as usual.

If the fragments take different paths through the net, and arrive at
different conversion points, the datagram is lost.

10.3  Where does the conversion happen?

The objective of conversion is to be able to upgrade systems, both
hosts and routers, in whatever order desired by their owners.
Organizations must be able to upgrade any given system without
reconfiguration or modification of any other; and IPv4 hosts must be
able to interoperate essentially forever.  (IPv4 routers will probably
be effectively eliminated at some point, except where they exist in
their own remote or isolated corners.)

Each TCP/IP v7 system, whether host or router, must be able to
recognize adjacent systems in the topology that are (only) v4, and
call the appropriate conversion routine just before sending the
datagram.

Digression:  I believe v7 hosts will get much better performance by
doing everything internally in v7, and using conversion to filter
datagrams when necessary.  This keeps the usual code path simple, with
only a "hook" right after receiving to convert incoming IPv4
datagrams, and just before sending to convert to IPv4.  Routers may
prefer to keep datagrams in their incoming version, at least until
after the routing decision is made, and then doing the conversion only
if necessary.  In either case, this is an implementation specific
decision.

It must be noted that any forwarding system may convert datagrams to
IPv7, then back to IPv4, even if that loses information such as
unknown options.  The reverse is not acceptable:  a system that
receives an IPv7 datagram should not convert it to IPv4, then back to
IPv7 on forwarding.

The preferred method for identifying which hosts require conversion is
to ARP first for the IPv7 address, and then again if no response is
received, for the IPv4 address.  The reservation of ADs out of the v4
network number space is useful again here, protecting hosts that fail
to properly use the ARP address length fields.

On networks where ARP is not normally used, the method is to assume
that a remote system is v7.  If an IPv7 datagram is received from it,
the assumption is confirmed.  If, after a short time, no IPv7 datagram
is received, a v7 ICMP echo is sent.  If a reply is received (in
either version) the assumption is confirmed.







Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 26]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


If no reply is recieved, the remote system is assumed not to
understand IPv7, and datagrams are converted to IPv4 just before
transmitting them.

Implementations should also provide for explicit configuration where
desired.

10.4  Hybrid IPv4 systems

In the course of implementing IPv7, especially in constrained
environments such as small terminal servers, it may be useful to
implement the IPv4 address extension option directly, thereby
regaining universal connectivity.

This may also be a useful interim step for vendors not prepared to do
a major rework of an implementation; but it is important not to get
stalled in this step.

A hybrid IPv4 + address extension system does not have to implement
the conversion, it places this onus on its neighbors.  It may itself
have an address with the subnet extension (7th byte) not equal to 1.

The implication of hybrid systems is that it is not valid to assume
that a host with a IPv7 address is a native IPv7 implementation.

10.5  Maximum segment size in TCP

It is probably advisable for IPv4 implementations to reduce the MSS
offered by a small amount where possible, to avoid fragmentation when
datagrams are converted to IPv7.  This arises when IPv4 hosts are
communicating through an IPv7 infrastructure, with the same MTU as the
local networks of the hosts.

10.6  Forwarding and redirects

It may be important for a router to not send ICMP redirects when it
finds that it must do a conversion as part of forwarding the datagram.
In this case, the hosts involved may not be able to interact directly.
The IPv7 host could ignore the redirect, but this results in an
unpleasant level of noise as the sequence continually recurs.

10.7  Design considerations

The conversion is designed to be fairly efficient in implementation,
especially on RISC architectures, assuming they can either do a
conditional move (or store), or do a short forward branch without
losing the instruction cache.  The other conditional branches in the
body of the code are usually not-taken out to the failure/discard
case.

Handling options does involve a loop and a dispatch (case) operation.
The options in IPv4 are more difficult to handle, not being designed
for speed on a 32 bit aligned RISCish architecture, but they do not
occur often, except perhaps the address extension option.





Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 27]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


For CISC machines, the same considerations will lead to fairly
efficient code.

The conversion code must be extremely careful to be robust when
presented with invalid input; in particular, it may be presented with
truncated transport layer headers when called recursively from the
ICMP conversion.

10.8  Conversion from IPv4 to IPv7

Individual steps in the conversion; the order is in most cases not
significant.

      o  Verify checksum.

      o  Verify fragment offset is 0, MF flag is 0.

      o  Verify version is 4.

      o  Extend TTL to 16 bits, multiply by 16.

      o  Set forward route identifier to 0.

      o  Set first 3 octets of destination to AD (i.e.  126.0.0), copy
         first three octets from v4 address, set next octet to 1, copy
         last octet.  (This can be done with shift/mask/or operations
         on most architectures.)

      o  Do the same translation on source address.

      o  Copy protocol, set high 8 bits to zero.

      o  If DF flag set, add Don't Fragment option.

      o  If Address Extension option present, copy ADs and subnet
         extension numbers into destination and source.

      o  Convert other options where possible.  If an unknown option
         with copy-on-fragment is found, fail.  If copy-on-fragment is
         not set, ignore the option.  I.e.  the flag is (ab)used as an
         indicator of whether the option is mandatory.

      o  Compute new IP header length.

      o  Convert session/transport layer (TCP) header and data.

      o  Compute new overall datagram length.

      o  Calculate IPv7 checksum.










Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 28]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


10.9  Conversion from IPv7 to IPv4

The steps to convert IPv7 to IPv4 follow.  Note that the converting
router or host is partly in the role of destination host; it checks
both bits of class in IP options, and (as in the other direction) must
reassemble fragmented datagrams.

      o  Verify checksum.

      o  Verify version is 7

      o  Set type-of-service to 0 (there may be an option defined,
         that will be handled later).

      o  If length is greater than (about) 65563, fail.  (That number
         is not a typographical error.  Note that the IPv7+TCPv7
         headers add up to 28 bytes more than the corresponding v4
         headers in the usual case.) This check is only to avoid
         useless work, the precise check is later.

      o  Generate an ID (using an ISN based sequence generator,
         possibly also based on destination or source or both).

      o  Set flags and fragment field to 0.

      o  Divide TTL by 16, if zero, fail (send ICMP Time Exceeded).
         If greater that 255, set to 255.

      o  If next layer protocol is greater than 255, fail.  Else copy.

      o  Copy first 3 octets and 8th octet of destination to
         destination address.

      o  Same for source address.

      o  Generate v4 address extension option.  (If enabled; this
         probably should be a configuration option, should default to
         on.)

      o  Process v7 options.  If any unknown options of class not 0
         found, fail.

      o  If Don't Fragment option found, set DF flag.

      o  If Don't Convert option found, fail.

      o  Convert other options where possible, or fail.

      o  Compute new IP header length.  This may fail (too large),
         fail conversion if so.









Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 29]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


      o  Convert session/transport layer (e.g. TCP).

      o  Compute new overall datagram length.  If greater than 65535,
         fail.

      o  Compute IPv4 checksum.


10.10  Conversion from TCPv4 to TCPv7


      o  Subtract header words from v4 checksum.  (Note that this is
         actually done with one's complement addition.)

      o  Copy flags (except for Urgent).

      o  If source port is less than 32768 (a sign condition test will
         suffice on most architectures), copy it.  If equal or
         greater, add 65536.

      o  Same operation on destination port.

      o  Copy sequence to low 32 bits, set high to 0.

      o  Copy acknowledgement to low 32 bits, set high to 0.

      o  Copy window.  (The TCPv4 performance extension [RFC1323]
         window-scale cannot be used, as it would require state; we
         use the basic window offered.)

      o  Add 32 bit rollover option.

      o  Convert maximum segment size option if present.

      o  Compute data offset and copy data.

      o  Add header words into saved checksum.  It is important not to
         recompute the checksum over the data; it must remain an
         end-to-end checksum.

      o  Return to IP layer conversion.


10.11  Conversion from TCPv7 to TCPv4


      o  Subtract header from v7 checksum.

      o  If source port is greater than 65535, subtract 65536.  If
         result is still greater than 65535, fail.  (Send ICMP
         conversion failed/port conversion out of range.  The sending
         host may then reset its port number generator to 98304.)







Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 30]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


      o  Same translation for destination port.

      o  Copy low 32 bits of sequence number.

      o  If A bit set, copy low 32 bits of acknowledgement.

      o  Copy flags.

      o  If window is greater than 61440, set it to 24576.  If less,
         copy it unchanged.  (Rationale for the 24K figure:  this has
         been found to be a good default for IPv4 hosts.  If the IPv7
         host is offering a very large window, the IPv4 host probably
         isn't prepared to play at that level.)

      o  Process options.  If 32 Bit Rollover is not present, and A
         flag is set, fail.  (Send ICMP conversion failed/32 bit
         Rollover missing.)

      o  If Urgent is present, compute offset.  If in segment, set U
         flag and offset field.  If not, ignore.

      o  Convert Maximum Segment Size option.  If greater than 16384,
         set to 16384.

      o  Compute new data offset.

      o  Add header words into v4 checksum.

      o  Return to IP layer conversion.


10.12  ICMP conversion

ICMP messages are converted by copying the type and code into the new
packet, and copying the other type-specific fields directly.

If the message contains an encapsulated, and usually truncated, IP
datagram, the conversion routine is called recursively to translate it
as far as possible.  There are some special considerations:

      o  The encapsulated datagram is less likely to be valid, given
         that it did generate an error of some kind.

      o  The conversion should attempt to complete all fields
         available, even if some would cause failures in the general
         case.  Note, in particular, that in the course of converting
         a datagram, when a failure occurs, an ICMP message
         (conversion failed) is sent; this message itself may
         immediately require conversion.  Part of that conversion will
         involve converting the original datagram.









Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 31]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


      o  Conditions such as overall datagram length too large are not
         checked.

      o  The AD and subnet byte assumed in the nested conversion may
         not be sensible if the IPv4 address extension option is not
         present and the datagram has strayed from the expected AD.
         (Not unlikely, given that we know a priori that some error
         occured.)

      o  The conversion must be very sure not to make another
         recursive call if the nested datagram is an ICMP message.
         (This should not occur, but obviously may.)

      o  It is probably impossible to generate a correct transport
         layer checksum in the nested datagram.  The conversion may
         prefer to just zero the checksum field.  Likewise, validating
         the original checksum is pointless.


It may be best in a given implementation to have a separate code path
for the nested conversion, that handles these issues out of the
optimized usual path.

11  Postscript

The present version of TCP/IP has been a success partly by accident,
for reasons that weren't really designed in.  Perhaps the most
significant is the low level of network integration required to make
it work.

We must be careful to retain the successful ingredients, even where we
may be unaware of them.  Tread lightly, and use all that we have
learned, especially about not changing things that work.

This document has described a fairly conservative step forward, with
clear extensibility for future developments, but without jumping into
the abyss.






















Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 32]


Internet Draft        TCP/IP: Internet Version 7         March 18, 1993


12  References

 [RFC768]    Jon Postel.  User Datagram protocol.  August, 1980

 [RFC791]    Jon Postel, editor.  Internet Protocol.  DARPA Internet
               Program Protocol Specification.  ISI/USC.  September,
               1981.

 [RFC792]    Jon Postel, editor.  Internet Control Message Protocol.
               DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification.
               ISI/USC.  September, 1981.

 [RFC793]    Jon Postel, editor.  Transmission Control Protocol.
               DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification.
               ISI/USC.  September, 1981.

 [RFC801]    Jon Postel, NCP/TCP transition plan.  November, 1981.

 [RFC1287]   D. Clark, L. Chapin, V. Cerf, R. Braden, R. Hobby.
               Towards the Future Internet Architecture.  December,
               1991.

 [RFC1323]   V. Jacobson, R. T. Braden, D. A. Borman.  TCP extensions
               for high performance.  May, 1992.

 [RFC1335]   Z. Wang, J. Crowcroft, Two-tier address structure for the
               Internet:  A solution to the problem of address space
               exhaustion.  May, 1992.

 [RFC1338]   V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K. Varadhan.  Supernetting:  an
               Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy.  June,
               1992.

 [RFC1347]   R. W. Callon.  TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA),
               A simple proposal for Internet addressing and routing.
               June, 1992.

 [ID-RAP]    Robert Ullmann.  RAP:  Internet Route Access Protocol.
               Internet draft:  unpublished at this writing.  January,
               1993.

13  Author's Address


Robert Ullmann
Process Software Corporation
959 Concord Street
Framingham, MA 01701
USA

Phone: +1 508 879 6994 x226
Email: Ariel@Process.COM

This draft expires on or before July 4, 1993.






Ullmann           DRAFT: expires September 18, 1993           [page 33]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/