datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.4.0, 2014-04-22
Report a bug

The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)
RFC 1763

Document type: RFC - Historic (March 1995)
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2013-03-02
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

IETF State: (None)
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: RFC 1763 (Historic)
Responsible AD: (None)
Send notices to: No addresses provided

Network Working Group                                           S. Senum
Request for Comments: 1763                                     DigiBoard
Category: Standards Track                                     March 1995

              The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for
   transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links.  PPP
   defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and proposes a family of
   Network Control Protocols for establishing and configuring different
   network-layer protocols.

   This document defines the Network Control Protocol for establishing
   and configuring the Banyan VINES protocol over PPP.

Table of Contents

   1.     Introduction ..........................................    2
      1.1       Specification of Requirements ...................    2
      1.2       Terminology .....................................    3
   2.     A PPP Network Control Protocol for VINES ..............    3
      2.1       Sending VINES Datagrams .........................    4
      2.2       General Considerations ..........................    4
   3.     BVCP Configuration Options ............................    5
      3.1       BV-NS-RTP-Link-Type .............................    5
      3.2       BV-FRP ..........................................    6
      3.3       BV-RTP ..........................................    7
      3.4       BV-Suppress-Broadcast ...........................    8
   SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................    9
   REFERENCES ...................................................    9
      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................    9
   CHAIR'S ADDRESS ..............................................   10
   AUTHOR'S ADDRESS .............................................   10

Senum                                                           [Page 1]
RFC 1763                        PPP BVCP                      March 1995

1.  Introduction

   PPP has three main components:

      1. A method for encapsulating multi-protocol datagrams.

      2. A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring,
         and testing the data-link connection.

      3. A family of Network Control Protocols for establishing and
         configuring different network-layer protocols.

   In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, each
   end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to configure and test
   the data link.  After the link has been established and optional
   facilities have been negotiated as needed by the LCP, PPP must send
   BVCP packets to choose and configure the VINES network-layer
   protocol.  Once BVCP has reached the Opened state, VINES datagrams
   can be sent over the link.

   The link will remain configured for communications until explicit LCP
   or BVCP packets close the link down, or until some external event
   occurs (an inactivity timer expires or network administrator
   intervention).

1.1.  Specification of Requirements

   In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
   of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.

   MUST      This word, or the adjective "required", means that the
             definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

   MUST NOT  This phrase means that the definition is an absolute
             prohibition of the specification.

   SHOULD    This word, or the adjective "recommended", means that there
             may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
             ignore this item, but the full implications must be
             understood and carefully weighed before choosing a
             different course.

   MAY       This word, or the adjective "optional", means that this
             item is one of an allowed set of alternatives.  An
             implementation which does not include this option MUST be
             prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
             does include the option.

Senum                                                           [Page 2]
RFC 1763                        PPP BVCP                      March 1995

1.2.  Terminology

   This document frequently uses the following terms:

[include full document text]