Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
TCP-IP Digest Vol. 2 No. 02
TCP/IP Digest Sunday, 20 March 1983 Volume 2 : Issue 2
Today's Topics:
Administrivia: Class "C" Transmission Host
Administrivia: NIC list -vs- the Digest
Security on TCP/IP?
RFC 848 ("Little TCP Services") Misleading
Looking for VDH driver for TCP/IP on UNIX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TCP/IP Digest --- The InterNet Digest
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
For Research Use Only --- Not for Public Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Mar 83 12:28:32 EST (Sun)
From: Mike Muuss (TCP-IP Digest) <tcp-ip@BRL>
Subject: Administrivia
This digest is intentionally a short one. This will be the first digest
transmitted from a machine on a class "C" network, connected by gateway
to the InterNet. As many hosts may not have up to date routing tables,
(or even host tables!), this will be an interesting test to see how far
along we really are.
Transmission is from host BRL-BMD, 192.5.21.1, via the
BRL-GATEWAY connecting 10.3.0.29 and 192.5.21.*
Mail which lingers in the queue for more than a few days I will note,
and manually forward through host BRL (10.0.0.29), so that everybody
should get a copy. The famous maxim applies: "If you don't see this
message, please let me know"!
Cheers,
-Mike
------------------------------
Date: 20 Mar 83 12:13:03 EST (Sun)
From: Mike Muuss (TCP-IP Digest) <tcp-ip@BRL>
Subject: NIC list -vs- digest
Now that the NIC list <TCP-IP@SRI-NIC> is also being transmitted to
the TCP-IP@BRL list, I have an interesting policy question.
Should I assume that people who send messages to the NIC list know
that they are going to come out later in the Digest and publish
them, so that everybody on the Digest can see and participate in
this new "insiders" forum, or, should I individually enquire of every
author if I can publish their letter (administrative nightmare),
or what?
For the time being, I will just hold messages from the NIC lists,
until some kind of consensus forms.
Thanks,
-Mike
------------------------------
Date: 13 Feb 83 22:38:35 EST (Sun)
From: smb%mhb5b@brl-bmd
Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: Security on TCP/IP
Mike: has any work been done on security protocols for TCP/IP? That
is, we're working on the first link of a Murray Hill Ethernet, which
will ultimately connect lots of machines up here. Some of them are
mutually suspicious (we have sensitive data on our machines, for example),
and I'd like ways to authenticate requests. Given that DOD is sponsoring
TCP/IP, I assume that *something* has been done, but I haven't seen any
papers, and I'd rather not re-invent the wheel.
--Steve
------------------------------
Date: 17 March 1983 21:25 est
From: Barry Margolin@Mit-Multics.ARPA
Subject: RFC 848 misleading
To: TCP-IP@Brl.ARPA
RFC 848, entitled "Who Provides the 'Little' TCP Services?", is a little
misleading. There are a number of hosts listed as providing almost all
the services tested. It seems that the lists were generated by
attempting to connect to the hosts, and noting whether the connection
was opened. The software that is running in many of these hosts, which
all seem to be PDP-11's running RT-11, generally seems to open
connections on any port. If it doesn't actually implement the service,
it then sends the ASCII string "HOSTNAME Unknown service port NN", where
HOSTNAME is replaced by its hostname (with the appropriate domain name)
and NN is the port. There are some exceptions to this, in which cases
they return the string "HOSTNAME Not yet Postel, not yet"!
Barry Margolin
Margolin@MIT-Multics.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: 11 Mar 1983 at 1557-PST
Subject: Looking for a VDH interface for UNIX
From: dan at SRI-TSC
Is anybody out there running TCP/IP on UNIX, through a VDH interface?
I would appreicate hearing about it for any version of UNIX TCP/IP.
Thanks!
-Dan Chernikoff (dan@sri-tsc)
------------------------------
END OF TCP-IP DIGEST
********************
