INTERNET PROTOCOL**

DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM
PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION

(RFC-791)


ABSTRACT

This document specifies the DoD Standard Internet Protocol. This document is based on six earlier editions of the ARPA Internet Protocol Specification, and the present text draws heavily from them. There have been many contributors to this work both in terms of concepts and in terms of text. This edition revises aspects of addressing, error handling, option codes, and the security, precedence, compartments, and handling restriction features of the internet protocol.


1.  INTRODUCTION

1.1.  Motivation

      The Internet Protocol is designed for use in interconnected systems of packet-switched computer communication networks. Such a system has been called a "catenet" [1]. The internet protocol provides for transmitting blocks of data called datagrams from sources to destinations, where sources and destinations are hosts identified by fixed length addresses. The internet protocol also provides for fragmentation and reassembly of long datagrams, if necessary, for transmission through "small packet" networks.

1.2.  Scope

      The internet protocol is specifically limited in scope to provide the functions necessary to deliver a package of bits (an internet datagram) from a source to a destination over an interconnected system of networks. There are no mechanisms to augment end-to-end data reliability, flow control, sequencing, or other services commonly found in host-to-host protocols. The internet protocol can capitalize on the services of its supporting networks to provide various types and qualities of service.

1.3.  Interfaces

      This protocol is called on by host-to-host protocols in an internet environment. This protocol calls on local network protocols to carry the internet datagram to the next gateway or destination host.

      For example, a TCP module would call on the internet module to take a TCP segment (including the TCP header and user data) as the data portion of an internet datagram. The TCP module would provide the addresses and other parameters in the internet header to the internet module as arguments of the call. The internet module would then create an internet datagram and call on the local network interface to transmit the internet datagram.

      In the ARPANET case, for example, the internet module would call on a local net module which would add the 1822 leader [2] to the internet datagram creating an ARPANET message to transmit to the IMP. The ARPANET address would be derived from the internet address by the local network interface and would be the address of some host in the ARPANET, that host might be a gateway to other networks.

1.4.  Operation

      The internet protocol implements two basic functions: addressing and fragmentation.

      The internet modules use the addresses carried in the internet header to transmit internet datagrams toward their destinations. The selection of a path for transmission is called routing.

      The internet modules use fields in the internet header to fragment and reassemble internet datagrams when necessary for transmission through "small packet" networks.

      The model of operation is that an internet module resides in each host engaged in internet communication and in each gateway that interconnects networks. These modules share common rules for interpreting address fields and for fragmenting and assembling internet datagrams. In addition, these modules (especially in gateways) have procedures for making routing decisions and other functions.

      The internet protocol treats each internet datagram as an independent entity unrelated to any other internet datagram. There are no connections or logical circuits (virtual or otherwise).

      The internet protocol uses four key mechanisms in providing its service: Type of Service, Time to Live, Options, and Header Checksum.

      The Type of Service is used to indicate the quality of the service desired. The type of service is an abstract or generalized set of parameters which characterize the service choices provided in the networks that make up the internet. This type of service indication is to be used by gateways to select the actual transmission parameters for a particular network, the network to be used for the next hop, or the next gateway when routing an internet datagram.

      The Time to Live is an indication of an upper bound on the lifetime of an internet datagram. It is set by the sender of the datagram and reduced at the points along the route where it is processed. If the time to live reaches zero before the internet datagram reaches its destination, the internet datagram is destroyed. The time to live can be thought of as a self destruct time limit.

      The Options provide for control functions needed or useful in some situations but unnecessary for the most common communications. The options include provisions for timestamps, security, and special routing.

      The Header Checksum provides a verification that the information used in processing internet datagram has been transmitted correctly. The data may contain errors. If the header checksum fails, the internet datagram is discarded at once by the entity which detects the error.

      The internet protocol does not provide a reliable communication facility. There are no acknowledgments either end-to-end or hop-by-hop. There is no error control for data, only a header checksum. There are no retransmissions. There is no flow control.

      Errors detected may be reported via the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [3] which is implemented in the internet protocol module.

2.  OVERVIEW

2.1.  Relation to Other Protocols

      The following diagram illustrates the place of the internet protocol in the protocol hierarchy:

+------+ +-----+ +-----+     +-----+  
|Telnet| | FTP | | TFTP| ... | ... |  
+------+ +-----+ +-----+     +-----+  
      |   |         |           |     
     +-----+     +-----+     +-----+  
     | TCP |     | UDP | ... | ... |  
     +-----+     +-----+     +-----+  
        |           |           |     
     +--------------------------+----+
     |    Internet Protocol & ICMP   |
     +--------------------------+----+
                    |                 
       +---------------------------+  
       |   Local Network Protocol  |  
       +---------------------------+  
Protocol Relationships
Figure 1.

      Internet protocol interfaces on one side to the higher level host-to-host protocols and on the other side to the local network protocol. In this context a "local network" may be a small network in a building or a large network such as the ARPANET.

2.2.  Model of Operation

      The model of operation for transmitting a datagram from one application program to another is illustrated by the following scenario: We suppose that this transmission will involve one intermediate gateway.

      The sending application program prepares its data and calls on its local internet module to send that data as a datagram and passes the destination address and other parameters as arguments of the call.

      The internet module prepares a datagram header and attaches the data to it. The internet module determines a local network address for this internet address, in this case it is the address of a gateway.

      It sends this datagram and the local network address to the local network interface.

      The local network interface creates a local network header, and attaches the datagram to it, then sends the result via the local network.

      The datagram arrives at a gateway host wrapped in the local network header, the local network interface strips off this header, and turns the datagram over to the internet module. The internet module determines from the internet address that the datagram is to be forwarded to another host in a second network. The internet module determines a local net address for the destination host. It calls on the local network interface for that network to send the datagram.

      This local network interface creates a local network header and attaches the datagram sending the result to the destination host.

      At this destination host the datagram is stripped of the local net header by the local network interface and handed to the internet module.

      The internet module determines that the datagram is for an application program in this host. It passes the data to the application program in response to a system call, passing the source address and other parameters as results of the call.

Application                                           Application
Program                                                   Program
      \                                                   /      
    Internet Module      Internet Module      Internet Module    
          \                 /       \                /           
          LNI-1          LNI-1      LNI-2         LNI-2          
             \          /             \          /              
            Local Network 1           Local Network 2            
Transmission Path
Figure 2

2.3.  Function Description

      The function or purpose of Internet Protocol is to move datagrams through an interconnected set of networks. This is done by passing the datagrams from one internet module to another until the destination is reached. The internet modules reside in hosts and gateways in the internet system. The datagrams are routed from one internet module to another through individual networks based on the interpretation of an internet address. Thus, one important mechanism of the internet protocol is the internet address.

      In the routing of messages from one internet module to another, datagrams may need to traverse a network whose maximum packet size is smaller than the size of the datagram. To overcome this difficulty, a fragmentation mechanism is provided in the internet protocol.

Addressing

      A distinction is made between names, addresses, and routes [4]. A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how to get there. The internet protocol deals primarily with addresses. It is the task of higher level (i.e., host-to-host or application) protocols to make the mapping from names to addresses. The internet module maps internet addresses to local net addresses. It is the task of lower level (i.e., local net or gateways) procedures to make the mapping from local net addresses to routes.

      Addresses are fixed length of four octets (32 bits). An address begins with a network number, followed by local address (called the "rest" field). There are three formats or classes of internet addresses: in class a, the high order bit is zero, the next 7 bits are the network, and the last 24 bits are the local address; in class b, the high order two bits are one-zero, the next 14 bits are the network and the last 16 bits are the local address; in class c, the high order three bits are one-one-zero, the next 21 bits are the network and the last 8 bits are the local address.

      Care must be taken in mapping internet addresses to local net addresses; a single physical host must be able to act as if it were several distinct hosts to the extent of using several distinct internet addresses. Some hosts will also have several physical interfaces (multi-homing).

      That is, provision must be made for a host to have several physical interfaces to the network with each having several logical internet addresses.

      Examples of address mappings may be found in "Address Mappings" [5].

Fragmentation

      Fragmentation of an internet datagram is necessary when it originates in a local net that allows a large packet size and must traverse a local net that limits packets to a smaller size to reach its destination.

      An internet datagram can be marked "don't fragment." Any internet datagram so marked is not to be internet fragmented under any circumstances. If internet datagram marked don't fragment cannot be delivered to its destination without fragmenting it, it is to be discarded instead.

      Fragmentation, transmission and reassembly across a local network which is invisible to the internet protocol module is called intranet fragmentation and may be used [6].

      The internet fragmentation and reassembly procedure needs to be able to break a datagram into an almost arbitrary number of pieces that can be later reassembled. The receiver of the fragments uses the identification field to ensure that fragments of different datagrams are not mixed. The fragment offset field tells the receiver the position of a fragment in the original datagram. The fragment offset and length determine the portion of the original datagram covered by this fragment. The more-fragments flag indicates (by being reset) the last fragment. These fields provide sufficient information to reassemble datagrams.

      The identification field is used to distinguish the fragments of one datagram from those of another. The originating protocol module of an internet datagram sets the identification field to a value that must be unique for that source-destination pair and protocol for the time the datagram will be active in the internet system. The originating protocol module of a complete datagram sets the more-fragments flag to zero and the fragment offset to zero.

      To fragment a long internet datagram, an internet protocol module (for example, in a gateway), creates two new internet datagrams and copies the contents of the internet header fields from the long datagram into both new internet headers. The data of the long datagram is divided into two portions on a 8 octet (64 bit) boundary (the second portion might not be an integral multiple of 8 octets, but the first must be). Call the number of 8 octet blocks in the first portion NFB (for Number of Fragment Blocks). The first portion of the data is placed in the first new internet datagram, and the total length field is set to the length of the first datagram. The more-fragments flag is set to one. The second portion of the data is placed in the second new internet datagram, and the total length field is set to the length of the second datagram. The more-fragments flag carries the same value as the long datagram. The fragment offset field of the second new internet datagram is set to the value of that field in the long datagram plus NFB.

      This procedure can be generalized for an n-way split, rather than the two-way split described.

      To assemble the fragments of an internet datagram, an internet protocol module (for example at a destination host) combines internet datagrams that all have the same value for the four fields: identification, source, destination, and protocol. The combination is done by placing the data portion of each fragment in the relative position indicated by the fragment offset in that fragment's internet header. The first fragment will have the fragment offset zero, and the last fragment will have the more-fragments flag reset to zero.

2.4.  Gateways

      Gateways implement internet protocol to forward datagrams between networks. Gateways also implement the Gateway to Gateway Protocol (GGP) [7] to coordinate routing and other internet control information.

      In a gateway the higher level protocols need not be implemented and the GGP functions are added to the IP module.

  +-------------------------------+   
  | Internet Protocol & ICMP & GGP|   
  +-------------------------------+   
          |                 |         
+---------------+   +---------------+ 
|   Local Net   |   |   Local Net   | 
+---------------+   +---------------+ 
Gateway Protocols
Figure 3.

3.  SPECIFICATION

3.1.  Internet Header Format

      A summary of the contents of the internet header follows:

 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|  IHL  |Type of Service|          Total Length         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Time to Live |    Protocol   |         Header Checksum       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Source Address                          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                    Destination Address                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example Internet Datagram Header
Figure 4.

Note that each tick mark represents one bit position.

Version: 4 bits

The Version field indicates the format of the internet header. This document describes version 4.

IHL: 4 bits

Internet Header Length is the length of the internet header in 32 bit words, and thus points to the beginning of the data. Note that the minimum value for a correct header is 5.

Type of Service: 8 bits

The Type of Service provides an indication of the abstract parameters of the quality of service desired.

Total Length: 16 bits

Total Length is the length of the datagram, measured in octets, including internet header and data. This field allows the length of a datagram to be up to 65,535 octets. Such long datagrams are impractical for most hosts and networks. All hosts must be prepared to accept datagrams of up to 576 octets (whether they arrive whole or in fragments). It is recommended that hosts only send datagrams larger than 576 octets if they have assurance that the destination is prepared to accept the larger datagrams.

The number 576 is selected to allow a reasonable sized data block to be transmitted in addition to the required header information. For example, this size allows a data block of 512 octets plus 64 header octets to fit in a datagram. The maximal internet header is 60 octets, and a typical internet header is 20 octets, allowing a margin for headers of higher level protocols.

Identification: 16 bits

An identifying value assigned by the sender to aid in assembling the fragments of a datagram.

Flags: 3 bits

Various Control Flags.

Bit 0: reserved, must be zero
Bit 1: (DF) 0 = May Fragment, 1 = Don't Fragment.
Bit 2: (MF) 0 = Last Fragment, 1 = More Fragments.

  0   1   2
+---+---+---+
|   | D | M |
| 0 | F | F |
+---+---+---+

Fragment Offset: 13 bits

This field indicates where in the datagram this fragment belongs. The fragment offset is measured in units of 8 octets (64 bits). The first fragment has offset zero.

Time to Live: 8 bits

This field indicates the maximum time the datagram is allowed to remain in the internet system. If this field contains the value zero, then the datagram must be destroyed. This field is modified in internet header processing. The time is measured in units of seconds, but since every module that processes a datagram must decrease the TTL by at least one even if it process the datagram in less than a second, the TTL must be thought of only as an upper bound on the time a datagram may exist. The intention is to cause undeliverable datagrams to be discarded, and to bound the maximum datagram lifetime.

Protocol: 8 bits

This field indicates the next level protocol used in the data portion of the internet datagram. The values for various protocols are specified in "Assigned Numbers" [9].

Header Checksum: 16 bits

A checksum on the header only. Since some header fields change (e.g., time to live), this is recomputed and verified at each point that the internet header is processed.

The checksum algorithm is: The checksum field is the 16 bit one's complement of the one's complement sum of all 16 bit words in the header. For purposes of computing the checksum, the value of the checksum field is zero.

This is a simple to compute checksum and experimental evidence indicates it is adequate, but it is provisional and may be replaced by a CRC procedure, depending on further experience.

Source Address: 32 bits

The source address. See section 3.2.

Destination Address: 32 bits

The destination address. See section 3.2.

3.2.  Discussion

      The implementation of a protocol must be robust. Each implementation must expect to interoperate with others created by different individuals. While the goal of this specification is to be explicit about the protocol there is the possibility of differing interpretations. In general, an implementation must be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior. That is, it must be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but must accept any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to technical errors where the meaning is still clear).

      The basic internet service is datagram oriented and provides for the fragmentation of datagrams at gateways, with reassembly taking place at the destination internet protocol module in the destination host. Of course, fragmentation and reassembly of datagrams within a network or by private agreement between the gateways of a network is also allowed since this is transparent to the internet protocols and the higher-level protocols. This transparent type of fragmentation and reassembly is termed "network-dependent" (or intranet) fragmentation and is not discussed further here.

      Internet addresses distinguish sources and destinations to the host level and provide a protocol field as well. It is assumed that each protocol will provide for whatever multiplexing is necessary within a host.

Addressing

      To provide for flexibility in assigning address to networks and allow for the large number of small to intermediate sized networks the interpretation of the address field is coded to specify a small number of networks with a large number of host, a moderate number of networks with a moderate number of hosts, and a large number of networks with a small number of hosts. In addition there is an escape code for extended addressing mode.

      Address Formats:


A value of zero in the network field means this network. This is only used in certain ICMP messages. The extended addressing mode is undefined. Both of these features are reserved for future use.

      The actual values assigned for network addresses is given in "Assigned Numbers" [9].

      The local address, assigned by the local network, must allow for a single physical host to act as several distinct internet hosts. That is, there must be a mapping between internet host addresses and network/host interfaces that allows several internet addresses to correspond to one interface. It must also be allowed for a host to have several physical interfaces and to treat the datagrams from several of them as if they were all addressed to a single host.

      Address mappings between internet addresses and addresses for ARPANET, SATNET, PRNET, and other networks are described in "Address Mappings" [5].

Fragmentation and Reassembly.

      The internet identification field (ID) is used together with the source and destination address, and the protocol fields, to identify datagram fragments for reassembly.

      The More Fragments flag bit (MF) is set if the datagram is not the last fragment. The Fragment Offset field identifies the fragment location, relative to the beginning of the original unfragmented datagram. Fragments are counted in units of 8 octets. The fragmentation strategy is designed so than an unfragmented datagram has all zero fragmentation information (MF = 0, fragment offset = 0). If an internet datagram is fragmented, its data portion must be broken on 8 octet boundaries.

      This format allows 2**13 = 8192 fragments of 8 octets each for a total of 65,536 octets. Note that this is consistent with the the datagram total length field (of course, the header is counted in the total length and not in the fragments).

      When fragmentation occurs, some options are copied, but others remain with the first fragment only.

      Every internet module must be able to forward a datagram of 68 octets without further fragmentation. This is because an internet header may be up to 60 octets, and the minimum fragment is 8 octets.

      Every internet destination must be able to receive a datagram of 576 octets either in one piece or in fragments to be reassembled.

      The fields which may be affected by fragmentation include:

(1)
options field
(2)
more fragments flag
(3)
fragment offset
(4)
internet header length field
(5)
total length field
(6)
header checksum

      If the Don't Fragment flag (DF) bit is set, then internet fragmentation of this datagram is NOT permitted, although it may be discarded. This can be used to prohibit fragmentation in cases where the receiving host does not have sufficient resources to reassemble internet fragments.

      One example of use of the Don't Fragment feature is to down line load a small host. A small host could have a boot strap program that accepts a datagram stores it in memory and then executes it.

      The fragmentation and reassembly procedures are most easily described by examples. The following procedures are example implementations.

      General notation in the following pseudo programs: "=<" means "less than or equal", "#" means "not equal", "=" means "equal", "<-" means "is set to". Also, "x to y" includes x and excludes y; for example, "4 to 7" would include 4, 5, and 6 (but not 7).

An Example Fragmentation Procedure

      The maximum sized datagram that can be transmitted through the next network is called the maximum transmission unit (MTU).

      If the total length is less than or equal the maximum transmission unit then submit this datagram to the next step in datagram processing; otherwise cut the datagram into two fragments, the first fragment being the maximum size, and the second fragment being the rest of the datagram. The first fragment is submitted to the next step in datagram processing, while the second fragment is submitted to this procedure in case it is still too large.

Notation:

FO    -  Fragment Offset
IHL   -  Internet Header Length
DF    -  Don't Fragment flag
MF    -  More Fragments flag
TL    -  Total Length
OFO   -  Old Fragment Offset
OIHL  -  Old Internet Header Length
OMF   -  Old More Fragments flag
OTL   -  Old Total Length
NFB   -  Number of Fragment Blocks
MTU   -  Maximum Transmission Unit

Procedure:

IF TL =< MTU THEN Submit this datagram to the next step
     in datagram processing ELSE IF DF = 1 THEN discard the
datagram ELSE
To produce the first fragment:
(1)  Copy the original internet header;
(2)  OIHL <- IHL; OTL <- TL; OFO <- FO; OMF <- MF;
(3)  NFB <- (MTU-IHL*4)/8;
(4)  Attach the first NFB*8 data octets;
(5)  Correct the header:
     MF <- 1;  TL <- (IHL*4)+(NFB*8);
     Recompute Checksum;
(6)  Submit this fragment to the next step in
     datagram processing;
To produce the second fragment:
(7)  Selectively copy the internet header (some options
     are not copied, see option definitions);
(8)  Append the remaining data;
(9)  Correct the header:
     IHL <- (((OIHL*4)-(length of options not copied))+3)/4;
     TL <- OTL - NFB*8 - (OIHL-IHL)*4);
     FO <- OFO + NFB;  MF <- OMF;  Recompute Checksum;
(10) Submit this fragment to the fragmentation test; DONE.

      In the above procedure each fragment (except the last) was made the maximum allowable size. An alternative might produce less than the maximum size datagrams. For example, one could implement a fragmentation procedure that repeatly divided large datagrams in half until the resulting fragments were less than the maximum transmission unit size.

An Example Reassembly Procedure

      For each datagram the buffer identifier is computed as the concatenation of the source, destination, protocol, and identification fields. If this is a whole datagram (that is both the fragment offset and the more fragments fields are zero), then any reassembly resources associated with this buffer identifier are released and the datagram is forwarded to the next step in datagram processing.

      If no other fragment with this buffer identifier is on hand then reassembly resources are allocated. The reassembly resources consist of a data buffer, a header buffer, a fragment block bit table, a total data length field, and a timer. The data from the fragment is placed in the data buffer according to its fragment offset and length, and bits are set in the fragment block bit table corresponding to the fragment blocks received.

      If this is the first fragment (that is the fragment offset is zero) this header is placed in the header buffer. If this is the last fragment ( that is the more fragments field is zero) the total data length is computed. If this fragment completes the datagram (tested by checking the bits set in the fragment block table), then the datagram is sent to the next step in datagram processing; otherwise the timer is set to the maximum of the current timer value and the value of the time to live field from this fragment; and the reassembly routine gives up control.

      If the timer runs out, the all reassembly resources for this buffer identifier are released. The initial setting of the timer is a lower bound on the reassembly waiting time. This is because the waiting time will be increased if the Time to Live in the arriving fragment is greater than the current timer value but will not be decreased if it is less. The maximum this timer value could reach is the maximum time to live (approximately 4.25 minutes). The current recommendation for the initial timer setting is 15 seconds. This may be changed as experience with this protocol accumulates. Note that the choice of this parameter value is related to the buffer capacity available and the data rate of the transmission medium; that is, data rate times timer value equals buffer size (e.g., 10Kb/s X 15s = 150Kb).

Notation:

FO    -  Fragment Offset
IHL   -  Internet Header Length
MF    -  More Fragments flag
TTL   -  Time To Live
NFB   -  Number of Fragment Blocks
TL    -  Total Length
TDL   -  Total Data Length
BUFID -  Buffer Identifier
RCVBT -  Fragment Received Bit Table
TLB   -  Timer Lower Bound

Procedure:

(1)  BUFID <- source|destination|protocol|identification;
(2)  IF FO = 0 AND MF = 0
(3)     THEN IF buffer with BUFID is allocated
(4)             THEN flush all reassembly for this BUFID;
(5)          Submit datagram to next step; DONE.
(6)     ELSE IF no buffer with BUFID is allocated
(7)             THEN allocate reassembly resources
                     with BUFID;
                     TIMER <- TLB; TDL <- 0;
(8)          put data from fragment into data buffer with
             BUFID from octet FO*8 to
                                 octet (TL-(IHL*4))+FO*8;
(9)          set RCVBT bits from FO
                                to FO+((TL-(IHL*4)+7)/8);
(10)         IF MF = 0 THEN TDL <- TL-(IHL*4)+(FO*8)
(11)         IF FO = 0 THEN put header in header buffer
(12)         IF TDL # 0
(13)          AND all RCVBT bits from 0
                                     to (TDL+7)/8 are set
(14)            THEN TL <- TDL+(IHL*4)
(15)                 Submit datagram to next step;
(16)                 free all reassembly resources
                     for this BUFID; DONE.
(17)         TIMER <- MAX(TIMER,TTL);
(18)         give up until next fragment or timer expires;
(19) timer expires: flush all reassembly with this BUFID; DONE.

      In the case that two or more fragments contain the same data either identically or through a partial overlap, this procedure will use the more recently arrived copy in the data buffer and datagram delivered.

Identification

      The choice of the Identifier for a datagram is based on the need to provide a way to uniquely identify the fragments of a particular datagram. The protocol module assembling fragments judges fragments to belong to the same datagram if they have the same source, destination, protocol, and Identifier. Thus, the sender must choose the Identifier to be unique for this source, destination pair and protocol for the time the datagram (or any fragment of it) could be alive in the internet.

      It seems then that a sending protocol module needs to keep a table of Identifiers, one entry for each destination it has communicated with in the last maximum packet lifetime for the internet.

      However, since the Identifier field allows 65,536 different values, some host may be able to simply use unique identifiers independent of destination.

      It is appropriate for some higher level protocols to choose the identifier. For example, TCP protocol modules may retransmit an identical TCP segment, and the probability for correct reception would be enhanced if the retransmission carried the same identifier as the original transmission since fragments of either datagram could be used to construct a correct TCP segment.

Time to Live

      The time to live is set by the sender to the maximum time the datagram is allowed to be in the internet system. If the datagram is in the internet system longer than the time to live, then the datagram must be destroyed.

      This field must be decreased at each point that the internet header is processed to reflect the time spent processing the datagram. Even if no local information is available on the time actually spent, the field must be decremented by 1. The time is measured in units of seconds (i.e. the value 1 means one second). Thus, the maximum time to live is 255 seconds or 4.25 minutes. Since every module that processes a datagram must decrease the TTL by at least one even if it process the datagram in less than a second, the TTL must be thought of only as an upper bound on the time a datagram may exist. The intention is to cause undeliverable datagrams to be discarded, and to bound the maximum datagram lifetime.

      Some higher level reliable connection protocols are based on assumptions that old duplicate datagrams will not arrive after a certain time elapses. The TTL is a way for such protocols to have an assurance that their assumption is met.

Checksum

      The internet header checksum is recomputed if the internet header is changed. For example, a reduction of the time to live, additions or changes to internet options, or due to fragmentation. This checksum at the internet level is intended to protect the internet header fields from transmission errors.

      There are some applications where a few data bit errors are acceptable while retransmission delays are not. If the internet protocol enforced data correctness such applications could not be supported.

Errors

      Internet protocol errors may be reported via the ICMP messages [3].

3.3.  Interfaces

      The functional description of user interfaces to the IP is, at best, fictional, since every operating system will have different facilities. Consequently, we must warn readers that different IP implementations may have different user interfaces. However, all IPs must provide a certain minimum set of services to guarantee that all IP implementations can support the same protocol hierarchy. This section specifies the functional interfaces required of all IP implementations.

      Internet protocol interfaces on one side to the local network and on the other side to either a higher level protocol or an application program. In the following, the higher level protocol or application program (or even a gateway program) will be called the "user" since it is using the internet module. Since internet protocol is a datagram protocol, there is minimal memory or state maintained between datagram transmissions, and each call on the internet protocol module by the user supplies all information necessary for the IP to perform the service requested.

An Example Upper Level Interface

      The following two example calls satisfy the requirements for the user to internet protocol module communication ("=>" means returns):

SEND (src, dst, prot, TOS, TTL, BufPTR, len, Id, DF, opt => result)

where:

src = source address
dst = destination address
prot = protocol
TOS = type of service
TTL = time to live
BufPTR = buffer pointer
len = length of buffer
Id  = Identifier
DF = Don't Fragment
opt = option data
result = response
  OK = datagram sent ok
  Error = error in arguments or local network error

Note that the precedence is included in the TOS and the security/compartment is passed as an option.

RECV (BufPTR, prot, => result, src, dst, TOS, len, opt)

where:

BufPTR = buffer pointer
prot = protocol
result = response
  OK = datagram received ok
  Error = error in arguments
len = length of buffer
src = source address
dst = destination address
TOS = type of service
opt = option data

      When the user sends a datagram, it executes the SEND call supplying all the arguments. The internet protocol module, on receiving this call, checks the arguments and prepares and sends the message. If the arguments are good and the datagram is accepted by the local network, the call returns successfully. If either the arguments are bad, or the datagram is not accepted by the local network, the call returns unsuccessfully. On unsuccessful returns, a reasonable report must be made as to the cause of the problem, but the details of such reports are up to individual implementations.

      When a datagram arrives at the internet protocol module from the local network, either there is a pending RECV call from the user addressed or there is not. In the first case, the pending call is satisfied by passing the information from the datagram to the user. In the second case, the user addressed is notified of a pending datagram. If the user addressed does not exist, an ICMP error message is returned to the sender, and the data is discarded.

      The notification of a user may be via a pseudo interrupt or similar mechanism, as appropriate in the particular operating system environment of the implementation.

      A user's RECV call may then either be immediately satisfied by a pending datagram, or the call may be pending until a datagram arrives.

      The source address is included in the send call in case the sending host has several addresses (multiple physical connections or logical addresses). The internet module must check to see that the source address is one of the legal address for this host.

      An implementation may also allow or require a call to the internet module to indicate interest in or reserve exclusive use of a class of datagrams (e.g., all those with a certain value in the protocol field).

      This section functionally characterizes a USER/IP interface. The notation used is similar to most procedure of function calls in high level languages, but this usage is not meant to rule out trap type service calls (e.g., SVCs, UUOs, EMTs), or any other form of interprocess communication.

APPENDIX A: Examples & Scenarios

Example 1:

      This is an example of the minimal data carrying internet datagram:

 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 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 5 |Type of Service|        Total Length = 21      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      Identification = 111     |Flg=0|   Fragment Offset = 0   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Time = 123  |  Protocol = 1 |        header checksum        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         source address                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      destination address                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     data      |                                                
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                                
Example Internet Datagram
Figure 5.

Note that each tick mark represents one bit position.

      This is a internet datagram in version 4 of internet protocol; the internet header consists of five 32 bit words, and the total length of the datagram is 21 octets. This datagram is a complete datagram (not a fragment).

Example 2:

      In this example, we show first a moderate size internet datagram (452 data octets), then two internet fragments that might result from the fragmentation of this datagram if the maximum sized transmission allowed were 280 octets.

 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 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 5 |Type of Service|       Total Length = 472      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Identification = 111      |Flg=0|     Fragment Offset = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Time = 123  | Protocol = 6  |        header checksum        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         source address                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      destination address                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             data                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             data                              |
\                                                               \
\                                                               \
|                             data                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|             data              |                                
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                
Example Internet Datagram
Figure 6.

Now the first fragment that results from splitting the datagram after 256 data octets.

 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 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 5 |Type of Service|       Total Length = 276      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Identification = 111      |Flg=1|     Fragment Offset = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Time = 119  | Protocol = 6  |        Header Checksum        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         source address                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      destination address                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             data                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             data                              |
\                                                               \
\                                                               \
|                             data                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             data                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example Internet Fragment
Figure 7.

And the second fragment.

 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 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 5 |Type of Service|       Total Length = 216      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Identification = 111      |Flg=0|  Fragment Offset  =  32 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Time = 119  | Protocol = 6  |        Header Checksum        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         source address                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      destination address                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             data                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             data                              |
\                                                               \
\                                                               \
|                             data                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|            data               |                                
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                
Example Internet Fragment
Figure 8.

APPENDIX B: Data Transmission Order

      The order of transmission of the header and data described in this document is resolved to the octet level. Whenever a diagram shows a group of octets, the order of transmission of those octets is the normal order in which they are read in English. For example, in the following diagram the octets are transmitted in the order they are numbered.

 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 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       1       |       2       |       3       |       4       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       5       |       6       |       7       |       8       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       9       |      10       |      11       |      12       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Transmission Order of Bytes
Figure 9.

      Whenever an octet represents a numeric quantity the left most bit in the diagram is the high order or most significant bit. That is, the bit labeled 0 is the most significant bit. For example, the following diagram represents the value 170 (decimal).

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Significance of Bits
Figure 10.

      Similarly, whenever a multi-octet field represents a numeric quantity the left most bit of the whole field is the most significant bit. When a multi-octet quantity is transmitted the most significant octet is transmitted first.

GLOSSARY

1822

BBN Report 1822, "The Specification of the Interconnection of a Host and an IMP". The specification of interface between a host and the ARPANET.
ARPANET leader

The control information on an ARPANET message at the host-IMP interface.
ARPANET message

The unit of transmission between a host and an IMP in the ARPANET. The maximum size is about 1012 octets (8096 bits).
ARPANET packet

A unit of transmission used internally in the ARPANET between IMPs. The maximum size is about 126 octets (1008 bits).
Destination

The destination address, an internet header field.
DF

The Don't Fragment bit carried in the flags field.
Flags

An internet header field carrying various control flags.
Fragment Offset

This internet header field indicates where in the internet datagram a fragment belongs.
GGP

Gateway to Gateway Protocol, the protocol used primarily between gateways to control routing and other gateway functions.
header

Control information at the beginning of a message, segment, datagram, packet or block of data.
ICMP

Internet Control Message Protocol, implemented in the internet module, the ICMP is used from gateways to hosts and between hosts to report errors and make routing suggestions.
Identification

An internet header field carrying the identifying value assigned by the sender to aid in assembling the fragments of a datagram.
IHL

The internet header field Internet Header Length is the length of the internet header measured in 32 bit words.
IMP

The Interface Message Processor, the packet switch of the ARPANET.
Internet Address

A four octet (32 bit) source or destination address consisting of a Network field and a Local Address field.
internet datagram

The unit of data exchanged between a pair of internet modules (includes the internet header).
internet fragment

A portion of the data of an internet datagram with an internet header.
Local Address

The address of a host within a network. The actual mapping of an internet local address on to the host addresses in a network is quite general, allowing for many to one mappings.
MF

The More-Fragments Flag carried in the internet header flags field.
module

An implementation, usually in software, of a protocol or other procedure.
more-fragments flag

A flag indicating whether or not this internet datagram contains the end of an internet datagram, carried in the internet header Flags field.
NFB

The Number of Fragment Blocks in a the data portion of an internet fragment. That is, the length of a portion of data measured in 8 octet units.
octet

An eight bit byte.
Options

The internet header Options field may contain several options, and each option may be several octets in length.
Padding

The internet header Padding field is used to ensure that the data begins on 32 bit word boundary. The padding is zero.
Protocol

In this document, the next higher level protocol identifier, an internet header field.
Rest

The local address portion of an Internet Address.
Source

The source address, an internet header field.
TCP

Transmission Control Protocol: A host-to-host protocol for reliable communication in internet environments.
TCP Segment

The unit of data exchanged between TCP modules (including the TCP header).
TFTP

Trivial File Transfer Protocol: A simple file transfer protocol built on UDP.
Time to Live

An internet header field which indicates the upper bound on how long this internet datagram may exist.
TOS

Type of Service
Total Length

The internet header field Total Length is the length of the datagram in octets including internet header and data.
TTL

Time to Live
Type of Service

An internet header field which indicates the type (or quality) of service for this internet datagram.
UDP

User Datagram Protocol: A user level protocol for transaction oriented applications.
User

The user of the internet protocol. This may be a higher level protocol module, an application program, or a gateway program.
Version

The Version field indicates the format of the internet header.

REFERENCES

[1]
Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model for Internetworking," Information Processing Techniques Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, IEN 48, July 1978.
[2]
Bolt Beranek and Newman, "Specification for the Interconnection of a Host and an IMP," BBN Technical Report 1822, Revised May 1978.
[3]
Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol - DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification," RFC 792, USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.
[4]
Shoch, J., "Inter-Network Naming, Addressing, and Routing," COMPCON, IEEE Computer Society, Fall 1978.
[5]
Postel, J., "Address Mappings," RFC 796, USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.
[6]
Shoch, J., "Packet Fragmentation in Inter-Network Protocols," Computer Networks, v. 3, n. 1, February 1979.
[7]
Strazisar, V., "How to Build a Gateway", IEN 109, Bolt Beranek and Newman, August 1979.
[8]
Postel, J., "Service Mappings," RFC 795, USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.
[9]
Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers," RFC 790, USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.

Footnotes

**This document is actually an edited version of RFC-791.