Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]
DRAFT STANDARD
Updated by:9289Errata ExistNetwork Working Group R. ThurlowRequest for Comments: 5531 Sun MicrosystemsObsoletes:1831 May 2009Category: Standards TrackRPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2Status 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.Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.Abstract This document describes the Open Network Computing (ONC) Remote Procedure Call (RPC) version 2 protocol as it is currently deployed and accepted. This document obsoletesRFC 1831.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................31.1. Requirements Language ......................................32. Changes sinceRFC 1831 ..........................................33. Terminology .....................................................34. The RPC Model ...................................................45. Transports and Semantics ........................................56. Binding and Rendezvous Independence .............................77. Authentication ..................................................78. RPC Protocol Requirements .......................................78.1. RPC Programs and Procedures ................................88.2. Authentication, Integrity, and Privacy .....................98.3. Program Number Assignment .................................108.4. Other Uses of the RPC Protocol ............................108.4.1. Batching ...........................................108.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls ...................119. The RPC Message Protocol .......................................1110. Authentication Protocols ......................................1510.1. Null Authentication ......................................1511. Record Marking Standard .......................................1612. The RPC Language ..............................................1612.1. An Example Service Described in the RPC Language .........1712.2. The RPC Language Specification ...........................1812.3. Syntax Notes .............................................1813. IANA Considerations ...........................................1913.1. Numbering Requests to IANA ...............................1913.2. Protecting Past Assignments ..............................1913.3. RPC Number Assignment ....................................1913.3.1. To be assigned by IANA ............................2013.3.2. Defined by Local Administrator ....................2013.3.3. Transient Block ...................................2013.3.4. Reserved Block ....................................2113.3.5. RPC Number Sub-Blocks .............................2113.4. RPC Authentication Flavor Number Assignment ..............2213.4.1. Assignment Policy .................................2213.4.2. Auth Flavors vs. Pseudo-Flavors ...................2313.5. Authentication Status Number Assignment ..................2313.5.1. Assignment Policy .................................2314. Security Considerations .......................................24Appendix A: System Authentication .................................25Appendix B: Requesting RPC-Related Numbers from IANA .............26Appendix C: Current Number Assignments ...........................27 Normative References .............................................62 Informative References ...........................................62Thurlow Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 20091. Introduction This document specifies version 2 of the message protocol used in ONC Remote Procedure Call (RPC). The message protocol is specified with the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [RFC4506]. This document assumes that the reader is familiar with XDR. It does not attempt to justify remote procedure call systems or describe their use. The paper by Birrell and Nelson [XRPC] is recommended as an excellent background for the remote procedure call concept.1.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].2. Changes sinceRFC 1831 This document obsoletes [RFC1831] as the authoritative document describing RPC, without introducing any over-the-wire protocol changes. The main changes fromRFC 1831 are: o Addition of an Appendix that describes how an implementor can request new RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers, and authentication status numbers from IANA, rather than from Sun Microsystems o Addition of an "IANA Considerations" section that describes past number assignment policy and how IANA is intended to assign them in the future o Clarification of the RPC Language Specification to match current usage o Enhancement of the "Security Considerations" section to reflect experience with strong security flavors o Specification of new authentication errors that are in common use in modern RPC implementations o Updates for the latest IETF intellectual property statements3. Terminology This document discusses clients, calls, servers, replies, services, programs, procedures, and versions. Each remote procedure call has two sides: an active client side that makes the call to a server side, which sends back a reply. A network service is a collection ofThurlow Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 one or more remote programs. A remote program implements one or more remote procedures; the procedures, their parameters, and results are documented in the specific program's protocol specification. A server may support more than one version of a remote program in order to be compatible with changing protocols. For example, a network file service may be composed of two programs. One program may deal with high-level applications such as file system access control and locking. The other may deal with low-level file input and output and have procedures like "read" and "write". A client of the network file service would call the procedures associated with the two programs of the service on behalf of the client. The terms "client" and "server" only apply to a particular transaction; a particular hardware entity (host) or software entity (process or program) could operate in both roles at different times. For example, a program that supplies remote execution service could also be a client of a network file service.4. The RPC Model The ONC RPC protocol is based on the remote procedure call model, which is similar to the local procedure call model. In the local case, the caller places arguments to a procedure in some well- specified location (such as a register window). It then transfers control to the procedure, and eventually regains control. At that point, the results of the procedure are extracted from the well- specified location, and the caller continues execution. The remote procedure call model is similar. One thread of control logically winds through two processes: the caller's process and a server's process. The caller first sends a call message to the server process and waits (blocks) for a reply message. The call message includes the procedure's parameters, and the reply message includes the procedure's results. Once the reply message is received, the results of the procedure are extracted, and the caller's execution is resumed. On the server side, a process is dormant awaiting the arrival of a call message. When one arrives, the server process extracts the procedure's parameters, computes the results, sends a reply message, and then awaits the next call message. In this model, only one of the two processes is active at any given time. However, this model is only given as an example. The ONC RPC protocol makes no restrictions on the concurrency model implemented, and others are possible. For example, an implementation may chooseThurlow Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 to have RPC calls be asynchronous so that the client may do useful work while waiting for the reply from the server. Another possibility is to have the server create a separate task to process an incoming call so that the original server can be free to receive other requests. There are a few important ways in which remote procedure calls differ from local procedure calls. o Error handling: failures of the remote server or network must be handled when using remote procedure calls. o Global variables and side effects: since the server does not have access to the client's address space, hidden arguments cannot be passed as global variables or returned as side effects. o Performance: remote procedures usually operate at one or more orders of magnitude slower than local procedure calls. o Authentication: since remote procedure calls can be transported over unsecured networks, authentication may be necessary. Authentication prevents one entity from masquerading as some other entity. The conclusion is that even though there are tools to automatically generate client and server libraries for a given service, protocols must still be designed carefully.5. Transports and Semantics The RPC protocol can be implemented on several different transport protocols. The scope of the definition of the RPC protocol excludes how a message is passed from one process to another, and includes only the specification and interpretation of messages. However, the application may wish to obtain information about (and perhaps control over) the transport layer through an interface not specified in this document. For example, the transport protocol may impose a restriction on the maximum size of RPC messages, or it may be stream-oriented like TCP [RFC0793] with no size limit. The client and server must agree on their transport protocol choices. It is important to point out that RPC does not try to implement any kind of reliability and that the application may need to be aware of the type of transport protocol underneath RPC. If it knows it is running on top of a reliable transport such as TCP, then most of the work is already done for it. On the other hand, if it is running onThurlow Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 top of an unreliable transport such as UDP [RFC0768], it must implement its own time-out, retransmission, and duplicate detection policies as the RPC protocol does not provide these services. Because of transport independence, the RPC protocol does not attach specific semantics to the remote procedures or their execution requirements. Semantics can be inferred from (but should be explicitly specified by) the underlying transport protocol. For example, consider RPC running on top of an unreliable transport such as UDP. If an application retransmits RPC call messages after time- outs, and does not receive a reply, it cannot infer anything about the number of times the procedure was executed. If it does receive a reply, then it can infer that the procedure was executed at least once. A server may wish to remember previously granted requests from a client and not regrant them, in order to insure some degree of execute-at-most-once semantics. A server can do this by taking advantage of the transaction ID that is packaged with every RPC message. The main use of this transaction ID is by the client RPC entity in matching replies to calls. However, a client application may choose to reuse its previous transaction ID when retransmitting a call. The server may choose to remember this ID after executing a call and not execute calls with the same ID, in order to achieve some degree of execute-at-most-once semantics. The server is not allowed to examine this ID in any other way except as a test for equality. On the other hand, if using a "reliable" transport such as TCP, the application can infer from a reply message that the procedure was executed exactly once, but if it receives no reply message, it cannot assume that the remote procedure was not executed. Note that even if a connection-oriented protocol like TCP is used, an application still needs time-outs and reconnections to handle server crashes. There are other possibilities for transports besides datagram- or connection-oriented protocols. For example, a request-reply protocol such as [VMTP] is perhaps a natural transport for RPC. ONC RPC currently uses both TCP and UDP transport protocols.Section 11 ("Record Marking Standard") describes the mechanism employed by ONC RPC to utilize a connection-oriented, stream-oriented transport such as TCP. The mechanism by which future transports having different structural characteristics should be used to transfer ONC RPC messages should be specified by means of a Standards Track RFC, once such additional transports are defined.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 20096. Binding and Rendezvous Independence The act of binding a particular client to a particular service and transport parameters is NOT part of this RPC protocol specification. This important and necessary function is left up to some higher-level software. Implementors could think of the RPC protocol as the jump-subroutine instruction (JSR) of a network; the loader (binder) makes JSR useful, and the loader itself uses JSR to accomplish its task. Likewise, the binding software makes RPC useful, possibly using RPC to accomplish this task.7. Authentication The RPC protocol provides the fields necessary for a client to identify itself to a service, and vice-versa, in each call and reply message. Security and access control mechanisms can be built on top of this message authentication. Several different authentication protocols can be supported. A field in the RPC header indicates which protocol is being used. More information on specific authentication protocols is inSection 8.2, "Authentication, Integrity and Privacy".8. RPC Protocol Requirements The RPC protocol must provide for the following: o Unique specification of a procedure to be called o Provisions for matching response messages to request messages o Provisions for authenticating the caller to service and vice-versa Besides these requirements, features that detect the following are worth supporting because of protocol roll-over errors, implementation bugs, user error, and network administration: o RPC protocol mismatches o Remote program protocol version mismatches o Protocol errors (such as misspecification of a procedure's parameters) o Reasons why remote authentication failed o Any other reasons why the desired procedure was not calledThurlow Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 20098.1. RPC Programs and Procedures The RPC call message has three unsigned-integer fields -- remote program number, remote program version number, and remote procedure number -- that uniquely identify the procedure to be called. Program numbers are administered by a central authority (IANA). Once implementors have a program number, they can implement their remote program; the first implementation would most likely have the version number 1 but MUST NOT be the number zero. Because most new protocols evolve, a "version" field of the call message identifies which version of the protocol the caller is using. Version numbers enable support of both old and new protocols through the same server process. The procedure number identifies the procedure to be called. These numbers are documented in the specific program's protocol specification. For example, a file service's protocol specification may state that its procedure number 5 is "read" and procedure number 12 is "write". Just as remote program protocols may change over several versions, the actual RPC message protocol could also change. Therefore, the call message also has in it the RPC version number, which is always equal to 2 for the version of RPC described here. The reply message to a request message has enough information to distinguish the following error conditions: o The remote implementation of RPC does not support protocol version 2. The lowest and highest supported RPC version numbers are returned. o The remote program is not available on the remote system. o The remote program does not support the requested version number. The lowest and highest supported remote program version numbers are returned. o The requested procedure number does not exist. (This is usually a client-side protocol or programming error.) o The parameters to the remote procedure appear to be garbage from the server's point of view. (Again, this is usually caused by a disagreement about the protocol between client and service.)Thurlow Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 20098.2. Authentication, Integrity, and Privacy Provisions for authentication of caller to service and vice-versa are provided as a part of the RPC protocol. The call message has two authentication fields: the credential and the verifier. The reply message has one authentication field: the response verifier. The RPC protocol specification defines all three fields to be the following opaque type (in the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [RFC4506]): enum auth_flavor { AUTH_NONE = 0, AUTH_SYS = 1, AUTH_SHORT = 2, AUTH_DH = 3, RPCSEC_GSS = 6 /* and more to be defined */ }; struct opaque_auth { auth_flavor flavor; opaque body<400>; }; In other words, any "opaque_auth" structure is an "auth_flavor" enumeration followed by up to 400 bytes that are opaque to (uninterpreted by) the RPC protocol implementation. The interpretation and semantics of the data contained within the authentication fields are specified by individual, independent authentication protocol specifications. If authentication parameters were rejected, the reply message contains information stating why they were rejected. As demonstrated by RPCSEC_GSS, it is possible for an "auth_flavor" to also support integrity and privacy.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 20098.3. Program Number Assignment Program numbers are given out in groups according to the following chart: 0x00000000 Reserved 0x00000001 - 0x1fffffff To be assigned by IANA 0x20000000 - 0x3fffffff Defined by local administrator (some blocks assigned here) 0x40000000 - 0x5fffffff Transient 0x60000000 - 0x7effffff Reserved 0x7f000000 - 0x7fffffff Assignment outstanding 0x80000000 - 0xffffffff Reserved The first group is a range of numbers administered by IANA and should be identical for all sites. The second range is for applications peculiar to a particular site. This range is intended primarily for debugging new programs. When a site develops an application that might be of general interest, that application should be given an assigned number in the first range. Application developers may apply for blocks of RPC program numbers in the first range by methods described inAppendix B. The third group is for applications that generate program numbers dynamically. The final groups are reserved for future use, and should not be used.8.4. Other Uses of the RPC Protocol The intended use of this protocol is for calling remote procedures. Normally, each call message is matched with a reply message. However, the protocol itself is a message-passing protocol with which other (non-procedure-call) protocols can be implemented.8.4.1. Batching Batching is useful when a client wishes to send an arbitrarily large sequence of call messages to a server. Batching typically uses reliable byte stream protocols (like TCP) for its transport. In the case of batching, the client never waits for a reply from the server, and the server does not send replies to batch calls. A sequence of batch calls is usually terminated by a legitimate remote procedure call operation in order to flush the pipeline and get positive acknowledgement.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 20098.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls In broadcast protocols, the client sends a broadcast call to the network and waits for numerous replies. This requires the use of packet-based protocols (like UDP) as its transport protocol. Servers that support broadcast protocols usually respond only when the call is successfully processed and are silent in the face of errors, but this varies with the application. The principles of broadcast RPC also apply to multicasting -- an RPC request can be sent to a multicast address.9. The RPC Message Protocol This section defines the RPC message protocol in the XDR data description language [RFC4506]. enum msg_type { CALL = 0, REPLY = 1 }; A reply to a call message can take on two forms: the message was either accepted or rejected. enum reply_stat { MSG_ACCEPTED = 0, MSG_DENIED = 1 }; Given that a call message was accepted, the following is the status of an attempt to call a remote procedure. enum accept_stat { SUCCESS = 0, /* RPC executed successfully */ PROG_UNAVAIL = 1, /* remote hasn't exported program */ PROG_MISMATCH = 2, /* remote can't support version # */ PROC_UNAVAIL = 3, /* program can't support procedure */ GARBAGE_ARGS = 4, /* procedure can't decode params */ SYSTEM_ERR = 5 /* e.g. memory allocation failure */ }; Reasons why a call message was rejected: enum reject_stat { RPC_MISMATCH = 0, /* RPC version number != 2 */ AUTH_ERROR = 1 /* remote can't authenticate caller */ };Thurlow Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 Why authentication failed: enum auth_stat { AUTH_OK = 0, /* success */ /* * failed at remote end */ AUTH_BADCRED = 1, /* bad credential (seal broken) */ AUTH_REJECTEDCRED = 2, /* client must begin new session */ AUTH_BADVERF = 3, /* bad verifier (seal broken) */ AUTH_REJECTEDVERF = 4, /* verifier expired or replayed */ AUTH_TOOWEAK = 5, /* rejected for security reasons */ /* * failed locally */ AUTH_INVALIDRESP = 6, /* bogus response verifier */ AUTH_FAILED = 7, /* reason unknown */ /* * AUTH_KERB errors; deprecated. See [RFC2695] */ AUTH_KERB_GENERIC = 8, /* kerberos generic error */ AUTH_TIMEEXPIRE = 9, /* time of credential expired */ AUTH_TKT_FILE = 10, /* problem with ticket file */ AUTH_DECODE = 11, /* can't decode authenticator */ AUTH_NET_ADDR = 12, /* wrong net address in ticket */ /* * RPCSEC_GSS GSS related errors */ RPCSEC_GSS_CREDPROBLEM = 13, /* no credentials for user */ RPCSEC_GSS_CTXPROBLEM = 14 /* problem with context */ }; As new authentication mechanisms are added, there may be a need for more status codes to support them. IANA will hand out new auth_stat numbers on a simple First Come First Served basis as defined in the "IANA Considerations" andAppendix B. The RPC message: All messages start with a transaction identifier, xid, followed by a two-armed discriminated union. The union's discriminant is a msg_type that switches to one of the two types of the message. The xid of a REPLY message always matches that of the initiating CALL message. NB: The "xid" field is only used for clients matching reply messages with call messages or for servers detecting retransmissions; the service side cannot treat this id as any type of sequence number.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 struct rpc_msg { unsigned int xid; union switch (msg_type mtype) { case CALL: call_body cbody; case REPLY: reply_body rbody; } body; }; Body of an RPC call: In version 2 of the RPC protocol specification, rpcvers MUST be equal to 2. The fields "prog", "vers", and "proc" specify the remote program, its version number, and the procedure within the remote program to be called. After these fields are two authentication parameters: cred (authentication credential) and verf (authentication verifier). The two authentication parameters are followed by the parameters to the remote procedure, which are specified by the specific program protocol. The purpose of the authentication verifier is to validate the authentication credential. Note that these two items are historically separate, but are always used together as one logical entity. struct call_body { unsigned int rpcvers; /* must be equal to two (2) */ unsigned int prog; unsigned int vers; unsigned int proc; opaque_auth cred; opaque_auth verf; /* procedure-specific parameters start here */ }; Body of a reply to an RPC call: union reply_body switch (reply_stat stat) { case MSG_ACCEPTED: accepted_reply areply; case MSG_DENIED: rejected_reply rreply; } reply;Thurlow Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 Reply to an RPC call that was accepted by the server: There could be an error even though the call was accepted. The first field is an authentication verifier that the server generates in order to validate itself to the client. It is followed by a union whose discriminant is an enum accept_stat. The SUCCESS arm of the union is protocol-specific. The PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL, GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR arms of the union are void. The PROG_MISMATCH arm specifies the lowest and highest version numbers of the remote program supported by the server. struct accepted_reply { opaque_auth verf; union switch (accept_stat stat) { case SUCCESS: opaque results[0]; /* * procedure-specific results start here */ case PROG_MISMATCH: struct { unsigned int low; unsigned int high; } mismatch_info; default: /* * Void. Cases include PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL, * GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR. */ void; } reply_data; }; Reply to an RPC call that was rejected by the server: The call can be rejected for two reasons: either the server is not running a compatible version of the RPC protocol (RPC_MISMATCH) or the server rejects the identity of the caller (AUTH_ERROR). In case of an RPC version mismatch, the server returns the lowest and highest supported RPC version numbers. In case of invalid authentication, failure status is returned.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 union rejected_reply switch (reject_stat stat) { case RPC_MISMATCH: struct { unsigned int low; unsigned int high; } mismatch_info; case AUTH_ERROR: auth_stat stat; };10. Authentication Protocols As previously stated, authentication parameters are opaque, but open-ended to the rest of the RPC protocol. This section defines two standard flavors of authentication. Implementors are free to invent new authentication types, with the same rules of flavor number assignment as there are for program number assignment. The flavor of a credential or verifier refers to the value of the "flavor" field in the opaque_auth structure. Flavor numbers, like RPC program numbers, are also administered centrally, and developers may assign new flavor numbers by methods described inAppendix B. Credentials and verifiers are represented as variable-length opaque data (the "body" field in the opaque_auth structure). In this document, two flavors of authentication are described. Of these, Null authentication (described in the next subsection) is mandatory -- it MUST be available in all implementations. System authentication (AUTH_SYS) is described inAppendix A. Implementors MAY include AUTH_SYS in their implementations to support existing applications. See "Security Considerations" for information about other, more secure, authentication flavors.10.1. Null Authentication Often, calls must be made where the client does not care about its identity or the server does not care who the client is. In this case, the flavor of the RPC message's credential, verifier, and reply verifier is "AUTH_NONE". Opaque data associated with "AUTH_NONE" is undefined. It is recommended that the length of the opaque data be zero.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 200911. Record Marking Standard When RPC messages are passed on top of a byte stream transport protocol (like TCP), it is necessary to delimit one message from another in order to detect and possibly recover from protocol errors. This is called record marking (RM). One RPC message fits into one RM record. A record is composed of one or more record fragments. A record fragment is a four-byte header followed by 0 to (2**31) - 1 bytes of fragment data. The bytes encode an unsigned binary number; as with XDR integers, the byte order is from highest to lowest. The number encodes two values -- a boolean that indicates whether the fragment is the last fragment of the record (bit value 1 implies the fragment is the last fragment) and a 31-bit unsigned binary value that is the length in bytes of the fragment's data. The boolean value is the highest-order bit of the header; the length is the 31 low-order bits. (Note that this record specification is NOT in XDR standard form!)12. The RPC Language Just as there was a need to describe the XDR data-types in a formal language, there is also need to describe the procedures that operate on these XDR data-types in a formal language as well. The RPC language is an extension to the XDR language, with the addition of "program", "procedure", and "version" declarations. The keywords "program" and "version" are reserved in the RPC language, and implementations of XDR compilers MAY reserve these keywords even when provided with pure XDR, non-RPC, descriptions. The following example is used to describe the essence of the language.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 200912.1. An Example Service Described in the RPC Language Here is an example of the specification of a simple ping program. program PING_PROG { /* * Latest and greatest version */ version PING_VERS_PINGBACK { void PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0; /* * Ping the client, return the round-trip time * (in microseconds). Returns -1 if the operation * timed out. */ int PINGPROC_PINGBACK(void) = 1; } = 2; /* * Original version */ version PING_VERS_ORIG { void PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0; } = 1; } = 1; const PING_VERS = 2; /* latest version */ The first version described is PING_VERS_PINGBACK with two procedures: PINGPROC_NULL and PINGPROC_PINGBACK. PINGPROC_NULL takes no arguments and returns no results, but it is useful for computing round-trip times from the client to the server and back again. By convention, procedure 0 of any RPC protocol should have the same semantics and never require any kind of authentication. The second procedure is used for the client to have the server do a reverse ping operation back to the client, and it returns the amount of time (in microseconds) that the operation used. The next version, PING_VERS_ORIG, is the original version of the protocol, and it does not contain the PINGPROC_PINGBACK procedure. It is useful for compatibility with old client programs, and as this program matures, it may be dropped from the protocol entirely.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 200912.2. The RPC Language Specification The RPC language is identical to the XDR language defined inRFC4506, except for the added definition of a "program-def", described below. program-def: "program" identifier "{" version-def version-def * "}" "=" constant ";" version-def: "version" identifier "{" procedure-def procedure-def * "}" "=" constant ";" procedure-def: proc-return identifier "(" proc-firstarg ("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";" proc-return: "void" | type-specifier proc-firstarg: "void" | type-specifier12.3. Syntax Notes o The following keywords are added and cannot be used as identifiers: "program" and "version". o A version name cannot occur more than once within the scope of a program definition. Neither can a version number occur more than once within the scope of a program definition. o A procedure name cannot occur more than once within the scope of a version definition. Neither can a procedure number occur more than once within the scope of version definition. o Program identifiers are in the same name space as constant and type identifiers. o Only unsigned constants can be assigned to programs, versions, and procedures. o Current RPC language compilers do not generally support more than one type-specifier in procedure argument lists; the usual practice is to wrap arguments into a structure.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 200913. IANA Considerations The assignment of RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers, and authentication status numbers has in the past been performed by Sun Microsystems, Inc (Sun). This is inappropriate for an IETF Standards Track protocol, as such work is done well by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This document proposes the transfer of authority over RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers, and authentication status numbers described here from Sun Microsystems, Inc. to IANA and describes how IANA will maintain and assign these numbers. Users of RPC protocols will benefit by having an independent body responsible for these number assignments.13.1. Numbering Requests to IANAAppendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to IANA to request one or more RPC numbers and the rules that apply. IANA will store the request for documentary purposes and put the following information into the public registry: o The short description of purpose and use o The program number(s) assigned o The short identifier string(s)13.2. Protecting Past Assignments Sun has made assignments in both the RPC program number space and the RPC authentication flavor number space since the original deployment of RPC. The assignments made by Sun Microsystems are still valid, and will be preserved. Sun has communicated all current assignments in both number spaces to IANA and final handoff of number assignment is complete. Current program and auth number assignments are provided inAppendix C. Current authentication status numbers are listed inSection 9 of this document in the "enum auth_stat" definition.13.3. RPC Number Assignment Future IANA practice will deal with the following partitioning of the 32-bit number space as listed inSection 8.3. Detailed information for the administration of the partitioned blocks inSection 8.3 is given below.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 200913.3.1. To Be Assigned By IANA The first block will be administered by IANA, with previous assignments by Sun protected. Previous assignments were restricted to the range decimal 100000-399999 (0x000186a0 to 0x00061a7f); therefore, IANA will begin assignments at decimal 400000. Individual numbers should be grated on a First Come First Served basis, and blocks should be granted under rules related to the size of the block.13.3.2. Defined by Local Administrator The "Defined by local administrator" block is available for any local administrative domain to use, in a similar manner to IP address ranges reserved for private use. The expected use would be through the establishment of a local domain "authority" for assigning numbers from this range. This authority would establish any policies or procedures to be used within that local domain for use or assignment of RPC numbers from the range. The local domain should be sufficiently isolated that it would be unlikely that RPC applications developed by other local domains could communicate with the domain. This could result in RPC number contention, which would cause one of the applications to fail. In the absence of a local administrator, this block can be utilized in a "Private Use" manner per [RFC5226].13.3.3. Transient Block The "Transient" block can be used by any RPC application on an "as available" basis. This range is intended for services that can communicate a dynamically selected RPC program number to clients of the service. Any mechanism can be used to communicate the number. For example, either shared memory when the client and server are located on the same system or a network message (either RPC or otherwise) that disseminates the selected number can be used. The transient block is not administered. An RPC service uses this range by selecting a number in the transient range and attempting to register that number with the local system's RPC bindery (see the RPCBPROC_SET or PMAPPROC_SET procedures in "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2", [RFC1833]). If successful, no other RPC service was using that number and the RPC Bindery has assigned that number to the requesting RPC application. The registration is valid until the RPC Bindery terminates, which normally would only happen if the system reboots, causing all applications, including the RPC service using the transient number, to terminate. If the transient number registration fails, another RPC application is using the number andThurlow Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 the requestor must select another number and try again. To avoid conflicts, the recommended method is to select a number randomly from the transient range.13.3.4. Reserved Block The "Reserved" blocks are available for future use. RPC applications must not use numbers in these ranges unless their use is allowed by future action by the IESG.13.3.5. RPC Number Sub-Blocks RPC numbers are usually assigned for specific RPC services. Some applications, however, require multiple RPC numbers for a service. The most common example is an RPC service that needs to have multiple instances of the service active simultaneously at a specific site. RPC does not have an "instance identifier" in the protocol, so either a mechanism must be implemented to multiplex RPC requests amongst various instances of the service or unique RPC numbers must be used by each instance. In these cases, the RPC protocol used with the various numbers may be different or the same. The numbers may either be assigned dynamically by the application, or as part of a site-specific administrative decision. If possible, RPC services that dynamically assign RPC numbers should use the "Transient" RPC number block defined inSection 13.3.3. If not possible, RPC number sub-blocks may be requested. Assignment of RPC Number Sub-Blocks is controlled by the size of the sub-block being requested. "Specification Required" and "IESG Approval" are used as defined bySection 4.1 of [RFC5226]. Size of sub-block Assignment Method Authority ----------------- ----------------- --------- Up to 100 numbers First Come First Served IANA Up to 1000 numbers Specification Required IANA More than 1000 numbers IESG Approval required IESG Note: sub-blocks can be any size. The limits given above are maximums, and smaller size sub-blocks are allowed. Sub-blocks sized up to 100 numbers may be assigned by IANA on a First Come First Served basis. The RPC Service Description included in the range must include an indication of how the sub-block is managed. At a minimum, the statement should indicate whether the sub-block isThurlow Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 used with a single RPC protocol or multiple RPC protocols, and whether the numbers are dynamically assigned or statically (through administrative action) assigned. Sub-blocks of up to 1000 numbers must be documented in detail. The documentation must describe the RPC protocol or protocols that are to be used in the range. It must also describe how the numbers within the sub-block are to be assigned or used. Sub-blocks sized over 1000 numbers must be documented as described above, and the assignment must be approved by the IESG. It is expected that this will be rare. In order to avoid multiple requests of large blocks of numbers, the following rule is proposed. Requests up to and including 100 RPC numbers are handled via the First Come First Served assignment method. This 100 number threshold applies to the total number of RPC numbers assigned to an individual or entity. For example, if an individual or entity first requests, say, 70 numbers, and then later requests 40 numbers, then the request for the 40 numbers will be assigned via the Specification Required method. As long as the total number of numbers assigned does not exceed 1000, IANA is free to waive the Specification Required assignment for incremental requests of less than 100 numbers. If an individual or entity has under 1000 numbers and later requests an additional set of numbers such that the individual or entity would be granted over 1000 numbers, then the additional request will require IESG Approval.13.4. RPC Authentication Flavor Number Assignment The second number space is the authentication mechanism identifier, or "flavor", number. This number is used to distinguish between various authentication mechanisms that can be optionally used with an RPC message. An authentication identifier is used in the "flavor" field of the "opaque_auth" structure.13.4.1. Assignment PolicyAppendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to IANA to request one or more RPC auth numbers and the rules that apply. IANA will store the request for documentary purposes and put the following information into the public registry:Thurlow Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 o The short identifier string(s) o The auth number(s) assigned o The short description of purpose and use13.4.2. Auth Flavors vs. Pseudo-Flavors Recent progress in RPC security has moved away from new auth flavors as used by AUTH_DH [DH], and has focused on using the existing RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203] flavor and inventing novel GSS-API (Generic Security Services Application Programming Interface) mechanisms that can be used with it. Even though RPCSEC_GSS is an assigned authentication flavor, use of a new RPCSEC_GSS mechanism with the Network File System (NFS) ([RFC1094] [RFC1813], and [RFC3530]) will require the registration of 'pseudo-flavors' that are used to negotiate security mechanisms in an unambiguous way, as defined by [RFC2623]. Existing pseudo-flavors have been granted in the decimal range 390000-390255. New pseudo-flavor requests will be granted by IANA within this block on a First Come First Served basis. For non-pseudo-flavor requests, IANA will begin granting RPC authentication flavor numbers at 400000 on a First Come First Served basis to avoid conflicts with currently granted numbers. For authentication flavors or RPCSEC_GSS mechanisms to be used on the Internet, it is strongly advised that an Informational or Standards Track RFC be published describing the authentication mechanism behaviour and parameters.13.5. Authentication Status Number Assignment The final number space is the authentication status or "auth_stat" values that describe the nature of a problem found during an attempt to authenticate or validate authentication. The complete initial list of these values is found inSection 9 of this document, in the "auth_stat" enum listing. It is expected that it will be rare to add values, but that a small number of new values may be added from time to time as new authentication flavors introduce new possibilities. Numbers should be granted on a First Come First Served basis to avoid conflicts with currently granted numbers.13.5.1. Assignment PolicyAppendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to IANA to request one or more auth_stat values and the rules that apply. IANA will store the request for documentary purposes, and put the following information into the public registry:Thurlow Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 o The short identifier string(s) o The auth_stat number(s) assigned o The short description of purpose and use14. Security Considerations AUTH_SYS as described inAppendix A is known to be insecure due to the lack of a verifier to permit the credential to be validated. AUTH_SYS SHOULD NOT be used for services that permit clients to modify data. AUTH_SYS MUST NOT be specified as RECOMMENDED or REQUIRED for any Standards Track RPC service. AUTH_DH as mentioned in Sections8.2 and13.4.2 is considered obsolete and insecure; see [RFC2695]. AUTH_DH SHOULD NOT be used for services that permit clients to modify data. AUTH_DH MUST NOT be specified as RECOMMENDED or REQUIRED for any Standards Track RPC service. [RFC2203] defines a new security flavor, RPCSEC_GSS, which permits GSS-API [RFC2743] mechanisms to be used for securing RPC. All non- trivial RPC programs developed in the future should implement RPCSEC_GSS-based security appropriately. [RFC2623] describes how this was done for a widely deployed RPC program. Standards Track RPC services MUST mandate support for RPCSEC_GSS, and MUST mandate support for an authentication pseudo-flavor with appropriate levels of security, depending on the need for simple authentication, integrity (a.k.a. non-repudiation), or data privacy.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009Appendix A: System Authentication The client may wish to identify itself, for example, as it is identified on a UNIX(tm) system. The flavor of the client credential is "AUTH_SYS". The opaque data constituting the credential encodes the following structure: struct authsys_parms { unsigned int stamp; string machinename<255>; unsigned int uid; unsigned int gid; unsigned int gids<16>; }; The "stamp" is an arbitrary ID that the caller machine may generate. The "machinename" is the name of the caller's machine (like "krypton"). The "uid" is the caller's effective user ID. The "gid" is the caller's effective group ID. "gids" are a counted array of groups that contain the caller as a member. The verifier accompanying the credential should have "AUTH_NONE" flavor value (defined above). Note that this credential is only unique within a particular domain of machine names, uids, and gids. The flavor value of the verifier received in the reply message from the server may be "AUTH_NONE" or "AUTH_SHORT". In the case of "AUTH_SHORT", the bytes of the reply verifier's string encode an opaque structure. This new opaque structure may now be passed to the server instead of the original "AUTH_SYS" flavor credential. The server may keep a cache that maps shorthand opaque structures (passed back by way of an "AUTH_SHORT" style reply verifier) to the original credentials of the caller. The caller can save network bandwidth and server cpu cycles by using the shorthand credential. The server may flush the shorthand opaque structure at any time. If this happens, the remote procedure call message will be rejected due to an authentication error. The reason for the failure will be "AUTH_REJECTEDCRED". At this point, the client may wish to try the original "AUTH_SYS" style of credential. It should be noted that use of this flavor of authentication does not guarantee any security for the users or providers of a service, in itself. The authentication provided by this scheme can be considered legitimate only when applications using this scheme and the network can be secured externally, and privileged transport addresses are used for the communicating end-points (an example of this is the use of privileged TCP/UDP ports in UNIX systems -- note that not all systems enforce privileged transport address mechanisms).Thurlow Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009Appendix B: Requesting RPC-Related Numbers from IANA RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers, and authentication status numbers that must be unique across all networks are assigned by the Internet Assigned Number Authority. To apply for a single number or a block of numbers, electronic mail must be sent to IANA <iana@iana.org> with the following information: o The type of number(s) (program number or authentication flavor number or authentication status number) sought o How many numbers are sought o The name of the person or company that will use the number o An "identifier string" that associates the number with a service o Email address of the contact person for the service that will be using the number o A short description of the purpose and use of the number o If an authentication flavor number is sought, and the number will be a 'pseudo-flavor' intended for use with RPCSEC_GSS and NFS, mappings analogous to those inSection 4.2 of [RFC2623] Specific numbers cannot be requested. Numbers are assigned on a First Come First Served basis. For all RPC authentication flavor and authentication status numbers to be used on the Internet, it is strongly advised that an Informational or Standards Track RFC be published describing the authentication mechanism behaviour and parameters.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009Appendix C: Current Number Assignments # # Sun-assigned RPC numbers # # Description/Owner RPC Program Number Short Name # ----------------------------------------------------------------- portmapper 100000 pmapprog portmap rpcbind remote stats 100001 rstatprog remote users 100002 rusersprog nfs 100003 nfs yellow pages (NIS) 100004 ypprog ypserv mount demon 100005 mountprog remote dbx 100006 dbxprog yp binder (NIS) 100007 ypbindprog ypbind shutdown msg 100008 wall yppasswd server 100009 yppasswdprog yppasswdd ether stats 100010 etherstatprog disk quotas 100011 rquota spray packets 100012 spray 3270 mapper 100013 ibm3270prog RJE mapper 100014 ibmrjeprog selection service 100015 selnsvcprog remote database access 100016 rdatabaseprog remote execution 100017 rexec Alice Office Automation 100018 aliceprog scheduling service 100019 schedprog local lock manager 100020 lockprog llockmgr network lock manager 100021 netlockprog nlockmgr x.25 inr protocol 100022 x25prog status monitor 1 100023 statmon1 status monitor 2 100024 statmon2 selection library 100025 selnlibprog boot parameters service 100026 bootparam mazewars game 100027 mazeprog yp update (NIS) 100028 ypupdateprog ypupdate key server 100029 keyserveprog secure login 100030 securecmdprog nfs net forwarder init 100031 netfwdiprog nfs net forwarder trans 100032 netfwdtprog sunlink MAP 100033 sunlinkmap network monitor 100034 netmonprog lightweight database 100035 dbaseprog password authorization 100036 pwdauthprog translucent file svc 100037 tfsprog nse server 100038 nseprog nse activate daemon 100039 nse_activate_prog sunview help 100040 sunview_help_progThurlow Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 pnp install 100041 pnp_prog ip addr allocator 100042 ipaddr_alloc_prog show filehandle 100043 filehandle MVS NFS mount 100044 mvsnfsprog remote user file operations 100045 rem_fileop_user_prog batched ypupdate 100046 batch_ypupdateprog network execution mgr 100047 nem_prog raytrace/mandelbrot remote daemon 100048 raytrace_rd_prog raytrace/mandelbrot local daemon 100049 raytrace_ld_prog remote group file operations 100050 rem_fileop_group_prog remote system file operations 100051 rem_fileop_system_prog remote system role operations 100052 rem_system_role_prog gpd lego fb simulator 100053 [unknown] gpd simulator interface 100054 [unknown] ioadmd 100055 ioadmd filemerge 100056 filemerge_prog Name Binding Program 100057 namebind_prog sunlink NJE 100058 njeprog MVSNFS get attribute service 100059 mvsattrprog SunAccess/SunLink resource manager 100060 rmgrprog UID allocation service 100061 uidallocprog license broker 100062 lbserverprog NETlicense client binder 100063 lbbinderprog GID allocation service 100064 gidallocprog SunIsam 100065 sunisamprog Remote Debug Server 100066 rdbsrvprog Network Directory Daemon 100067 [unknown] Network Calendar Program 100068 cmsd cm ypxfrd 100069 ypxfrd rpc.timed 100070 timedprog bugtraqd 100071 bugtraqd 100072 [unknown] Connectathon Billboard - NFS 100073 [unknown] Connectathon Billboard - X 100074 [unknown] Sun tool for scheduling rooms 100075 schedroom Authentication Negotiation 100076 authnegotiate_prog Database manipulation 100077 attribute_prog Kerberos authentication daemon 100078 kerbprog Internal testing product (no name) 100079 [unknown] Sun Consulting Special 100080 autodump_prog Event protocol 100081 event_svc bugtraq_qd 100082 bugtraq_qd ToolTalk and Link Service Project 100083 database service Consulting Services 100084 [unknown] Consulting Services 100085 [unknown] Consulting Services 100086 [unknown] Jupiter Administration 100087 adm_agent admind 100088 [unknown]Thurlow Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 100089 [unknown] Dual Disk support 100090 libdsd/dsd DocViewer 1.1 100091 [unknown] ToolTalk 100092 remote_activation_svc Consulting Services 100093 host_checking SNA peer-to-peer 100094 [unknown] Roger Riggs 100095 searchit Robert Allen 100096 mesgtool SNA 100097 [unknown] SISU 100098 networked version of CS5 NFS Automount File System 100099 autofs 100100 msgboard event dispatching agent [eventd] 100101 netmgt_eventd_prog statistics/event logger [netlogd] 100102 netmgt_netlogd_prog topology display manager [topology]100103 netmgt_topology_prog syncstat agent [syncstatd] 100104 netmgt_syncstatd_prog ip packet stats agent [ippktd] 100105 netmgt_ippktd_prog netmgt config agent [configd] 100106 netmgt_configd_prog restat agent [restatd] 100107 netmgt_restatd_prog lpq agent [lprstatd] 100108 netmgt_lprstatd_prog netmgt activity agent [mgtlogd] 100109 netmgt_mgtlogd_prog proxy DECnet NCP agent [proxydni] 100110 netmgt_proxydni_prog topology mapper agent [mapperd] 100111 netmgt_mapperd_prog netstat agent [netstatd] 100112 netmgt_netstatd_prog sample netmgt agent [sampled] 100113 netmgt_sampled_prog X.25 statistics agent [vcstatd] 100114 netmgt_vcstatd_prog Frame Relay 100128 [unknown] PPP agent 100129 [unknown] localhad 100130 rpc.localhad layers2 100131 na.layers2 token ring agent 100132 na.tr related to lockd and statd 100133 nsm_addr Kerberos project 100134 kwarn ertherif2 100135 na.etherif2 hostmem2 100136 na.hostmem2 iostat2 100137 na.iostat2 snmpv2 100138 na.snmpv2 Cooperative Console 100139 cc_sender na.cpustat 100140 na.cpustat Sun Cluster SC3.0 100141 rgmd_receptionist 100142 fed Network Storage 100143 rdc Sun Cluster products 100144 nafo SunCluster 3.0 100145 scadmd ASN.1 100146 amiserv 100147 amiaux # BER and DER encode and decode Delegate Management Server 100148 dmThurlow Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 100149 rkstat 100150 ocfserv 100151 sccheckd 100152 autoclientd 100153 sunvts 100154 ssmond 100155 smserverd 100156 test1 100157 test2 100158 test3 100159 test4 100160 test5 100161 test6 100162 test7 100163 test8 100164 test9 100165 test10 100166 nfsmapid 100167 SUN_WBEM_C_CIMON_HANDLE 100168 sacmmd 100169 fmd_adm 100170 fmd_api 100171 [unknown] 100172 idmapd unassigned 100173 - 100174 snmptrap 100175 na.snmptrap unassigned 100176-100199 unassigned 100200 MVS/NFS Memory usage stats server 100201 [unknown] Netapp 100202-100207 unassigned 100208-100210 8.0 SunLink SNA RJE 100211 [unknown] 8.0 SunLink SNA RJE 100212 [unknown] 100213 ShowMe 100214 [unknown] 100215 [unknown] AUTH_RSA Key service 100216 keyrsa SunSelect PC license service 100217 [unknown] WWCS (Corporate) 100218 sunsolve 100219 cstatd X/Open Federated Naming 100220 xfn_server_prog Kodak Color Management System 100221 kcs_network_io kcs HA-DBMS 100222 ha_dbms_serv 100223-100225 [unknown] 100226 hafaultd NFS ACL Service 100227 nfs_acl distributed lock manager 100228 dlmdThurlow Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 100229 metad 100230 metamhd 100231 nfsauth 100232 sadmind 100233 ufsd 100234 grpservd 100235 cachefsd 100236 msmprog Media_Server 100237 ihnamed 100238 ihnetd 100239 ihsecured 100240 ihclassmgrd 100241 ihrepositoryd 100242 metamedd rpc.metamedd 100243 contentmanager cm 100244 symon 100245 pld genesil 100246 ctid cluster_transport_interface 100247 ccd cluster_configuration_db 100248 pmfd 100249 dmi2_client 100250 mfs_admin 100251 ndshared_unlink 100252 ndshared_touch 100253 ndshared_slink 100254 cbs control_board_server 100255 skiserv 100256 nfsxa nfsxattr 100257 ndshared_disable 100258 ndshared_enable 100259 sms_account_admin 100260 sms_modem_admin 100261 sms_r_login 100262 sms_r_subaccount_mgt 100263 sms_service_admin 100264 session_admin 100265 canci_ancs_program 100266 canci_sms_program 100267 msmp 100268 halck 100269 halogmsg 100270 nfs_id_map 100271 ncall 100272 hmip 100273 repl_mig 100274 repl_mig_cbThurlow Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 NIS+ 100300 nisplus NIS+ 100301 nis_cachemgr NIS+ call back protocol 100302 [unknown] NIS+ Password Update Daemon 100303 nispasswdd FNS context update in NIS 100304 fnsypd 100305 [unknown] 100306 [unknown] 100307 [unknown] 100308 [unknown] 100309 [unknown] unassigned 100310 - 100398 nfscksum 100399 nfscksum network utilization agent 100400 netmgt_netu_prog network rpc ping agent 100401 netmgt_rping_prog 100402 na.shell picsprint 100403 na.picslp 100404 traps 100405 - 100409 [unknown] 100410 jdsagent 100411 na.haconfig 100412 na.halhost 100413 na.hadtsrvc 100414 na.hamdstat 100415 na.neoadmin 100416 ex1048prog rdmaconfig 100417 rpc.rdmaconfig IETF NFSv4 Working Group - FedFS 100418 - 100421 100422 mdcommd 100423 kiprop krb5_iprop 100424 stsf unassigned 100425 - 100499 Sun Microsystems 100500 - 100531 [unknown] 100532 ucmmstate 100533 scrcmd unassigned 100534 - 100999 nse link daemon 101002 nselinktool nse link application 101003 nselinkapp unassigned 101004 - 101900 101901 [unknown] unassigned 101902 - 101999 AssetLite 102000 [unknown] PagerTool 102001 [unknown] Discover 102002 [unknown] unassigned 102003 - 105000 ShowMe 105001 sharedapp Registry 105002 REGISTRY_PROG Print-server 105003 print-server Proto-server 105004 proto-serverThurlow Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 Notification-server 105005 notification-server Transfer-agent-server 105006 transfer-agent-server unassigned 105007 - 110000 110001 tsolrpcb 110002 tsolpeerinfo 110003 tsolboot 120001 cmip na.cmip 120002 na.osidiscover 120003 cmiptrap unassigned 120004 - 120099 120100 eserver 120101 repserver 120102 swserver 120103 dmd 120104 ca unassigned 120105 - 120125 120126 nf_fddi 120127 nf_fddismt7_2 unassigned 120128 - 150000 pc passwd authorization 150001 pcnfsdprog TOPS name mapping 150002 [unknown] TOPS external attribute storage 150003 [unknown] TOPS hierarchical file system 150004 [unknown] TOPS NFS transparency extensions 150005 [unknown] PC NFS License 150006 pcnfslicense RDA 150007 rdaprog WabiServer 150008 wsprog WabiServer 150009 wsrlprog unassigned 150010 - 160000 160001 nihon-cm 160002 nihon-ce unassigned 160003 - 170099 170100 domf_daemon0 170101 domf_daemon1 170102 domf_daemon2 170103 domf_daemon3 170104 domf_daemon4 170105 domf_daemon5 unassigned 170106 - 179999 180000 cecprog 180001 cecsysprog 180002 cec2cecprog 180003 cesprog 180004 ces2cesprog 180005 cet2cetprog 180006 cet2cetdoneprog 180007 cetcomprog 180008 cetsysprogThurlow Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 180009 cghapresenceprog 180010 cgdmsyncprog 180011 cgdmcnscliprog 180012 cgdmcrcscliprog 180013 cgdmcrcssvcproG 180014 chmprog 180015 chmsysprog 180016 crcsapiprog 180017 ckptmprog 180018 crimcomponentprog 180019 crimqueryprog 180020 crimsecondaryprog 180021 crimservicesprog 180022 crimsyscomponentprog 180023 crimsysservicesprog 180024 csmagtapiprog 180025 csmagtcallbackprog 180026 csmreplicaprog 180027 csmsrvprog 180028 cssccltprog 180029 csscsvrprog 180030 csscopresultprog unassigned 180031 - 199999 200000 pyramid_nfs 200001 pyramid_reserved 200002 cadds_image 200003 stellar_name_prog 200004 [unknown] 200005 [unknown] 200006 pacl 200007 lookupids 200008 ax_statd_prog 200009 ax_statd2_prog 200010 edm 200011 dtedirwd 200012 [unknown] 200013 [unknown] 200014 [unknown] 200015 [unknown] 200016 easerpcd 200017 rlxnfs 200018 sascuiddprog 200019 knfsd 200020 ftnfsd ftnfsd_program 200021 ftsyncd ftsyncd_program 200022 ftstatd ftstatd_program 200023 exportmap 200024 nfs_metadataThurlow Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 unassigned 200025 - 200200 200201 ecoad 200202 eamon 200203 ecolic 200204 cs_printstatus_svr 200205 ecodisc unassigned 200206 - 300000 300001 adt_rflockprog 300002 columbine1 300003 system33_prog 300004 frame_prog1 300005 uimxprog 300006 rvd 300007 entombing daemon 300008 account mgmt system 300009 frame_prog2 300010 beeper access 300011 dptuprog 300012 mx-bcp 300013 instrument-file-access 300014 file-system-statistics 300015 unify-database-server 300016 tmd_msg 300017 [unknown] 300018 [unknown] 300019 automounter access 300020 lock server 300021 [unknown] 300022 office-automation-1 300023 office-automation-2 300024 office-automation-3 300025 office-automation-4 300026 office-automation-5 300027 office-automation-6 300028 office-automation-7 300029 local-data-manager 300030 chide 300031 csi_program 300032 [unknown] 300033 online-help 300034 case-tool 300035 delta 300036 rgi 300037 instrument-config-server 300038 [unknown] 300039 [unknown] 300040 dtia-rpc-server 300041 cmsThurlow Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300042 viewer 300043 aqm 300044 exclaim 300045 masterplan 300046 fig_tool 300047 [unknown] 300048 [unknown] 300049 [unknown] 300050 remote-lock-manager 300051 [unknown] 300052 gdebug 300053 ldebug 300054 rscanner 300055 [unknown] 300056 [unknown] 300057 [unknown] 300058 [unknown] 300059 [unknown] 300060 [unknown] 300061 [unknown] 300062 [unknown] 300063 [unknown] 300064 [unknown] 300065 [unknown] 300066 nSERVER 300067 [unknown] 300068 [unknown] 300069 [unknown] 300070 [unknown] 300071 BioStation 300072 [unknown] 300073 NetProb 300074 Logging 300075 Logging 300076 [unknown] 300077 [unknown] 300078 [unknown] 300079 [unknown] 300080 [unknown] 300081 [unknown] 300082 sw_twin 300083 remote_get_login 300084 odcprog 300085 [unknown] 300086 [unknown] 300087 [unknown] 300088 [unknown] 300089 [unknown]Thurlow Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300090 [unknown] 300091 smartdoc 300092 superping 300093 distributed-chembench 300094 uacman/alfil-uacman 300095 ait_rcagent_prog 300096 ait_rcagent_appl_prog 300097 smart 300098 ecoprog 300099 leonardo 300100 [unknown] 300101 [unknown] 300102 [unknown] 300103 [unknown] 300104 [unknown] 300105 [unknown] 300106 [unknown] 300107 [unknown] 300108 wingz 300109 teidan 300110 [unknown] 300111 [unknown] 300112 [unknown] 300113 [unknown] 300114 [unknown] 300115 [unknown] 300116 cadc_fhlockprog 300117 highscan 300118 [unknown] 300119 [unknown] 300120 [unknown] 300121 opennavigator 300122 aarpcxfer 300123 [unknown] 300124 [unknown] 300125 [unknown] 300126 groggs 300127 licsrv 300128 issdemon 300129 [unknown] 300130 maximize 300131 cgm_server 300132 [unknown] 300133 agent_rpc 300134 docmaker 300135 docmaker 300136 [unknown] 300137 [unknown]Thurlow Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300138 [unknown] 300139 iesx 300140 [unknown] 300141 [unknown] 300142 [unknown] 300143 [unknown] 300144 smart-mbs 300145 [unknown] 300146 [unknown] 300147 docimage 300148 [unknown] 300149 dmc-interface 300150 [unknown] 300151 jss 300152 [unknown] 300153 arimage 300154 xdb-workbench 300155 frontdesk 300156 dmc 300157 expressight-6000 300158 graph service program 300159 [unknown] 300160 [unknown] 300161 [unknown] 300162 [unknown] 300163 [unknown] 300164 [unknown] 300165 [unknown] 300166 [unknown] 300167 [unknown] 300168 [unknown] 300169 [unknown] 300170 [unknown] 300171 [unknown] 300172 [unknown] 300173 [unknown] 300174 [unknown] 300175 [unknown] 300176 rlpr 300177 nx_hostdprog 300178 netuser-x 300179 rmntprog 300180 [unknown] 300181 mipe 300182 [unknown] 300183 collectorprog 300184 uslookup_PROG 300185 viewstationThurlow Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300186 iate 300187 [unknown] 300188 [unknown] 300189 [unknown] 300190 imsvtprog 300191 [unknown] 300192 [unknown] 300193 [unknown] 300194 pmdb 300195 pmda 300196 [unknown] 300197 [unknown] 300198 trend_idbd 300199 rres 300200 sd.masterd 300201 sd.executiond 300202 sd.listend 300203 sd.reserve1 300204 sd.reserve2 300205 msbd 300206 stagedprog 300207 mountprog 300208 watchdprog 300209 pms 300210 [unknown] 300211 session_server_program 300212 session_program 300213 debug_serverprog 300214 [unknown] 300215 [unknown] 300216 paceprog 300217 [unknown] 300218 mbus 300219 aframes2ps 300220 npartprog 300221 cm1server 300222 cm1bridge 300223 sailfrogfaxprog 300224 sailfrogphoneprog 300225 sailfrogvmailprog 300226 wserviceprog arcstorm 300227 hld 300228 alive 300229 radsp 300230 radavx 300231 radview 300232 rsys_prog 300233 rsys_progThurlow Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300234 fm_rpc_prog 300235 aries 300236 uapman 300237 ddman 300238 top 300239 [unknown] 300240 trendlink 300241 licenseprog 300242 statuslicenseprog 300243 oema_rmpf_svc 300244 oema_smpf_svc 300245 oema_rmsg_svc 300246 grapes-sd 300247 ds_master 300248 ds_transfer 300249 ds_logger 300250 ds_query 300251 [unknown] 300252 [unknown] 300253 nsd_prog 300254 browser 300255 epoch 300256 floorplanner 300257 reach 300258 tactic 300259 cachescientific1 300260 cachescientific2 300261 desksrc_prog 300262 photo3d1 300263 photo3d2 300264 [unknown] 300265 soundmgr 300266 s6k 300267 aims_referenced_ text_processor 300268 xess 300269 ds_queue 300270 [unknown] 300271 orionscanplus 300272 openlink-xx 300273 kbmsprog 300274 [unknown] 300275 futuresource 300276 the_xprt 300277 cmg_srvprog 300278 [unknown] 300279 [unknown] 300280 frontThurlow Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300281 [unknown] 300282 [unknown] 300283 [unknown] 300284 conmanprog 300285 jincv2 300286 isls 300287 systemstatprog 300288 fxpsprog 300289 callpath 300290 axess 300291 armor_rpcd 300292 armor_dictionary_rpcd 300293 armor_miscd 300294 filetransfer_prog 300295 bl_swda 300296 bl_hwda 300297 [unknown] 300298 [unknown] 300299 [unknown] 300300 filemon 300301 acunetprog 300302 rbuild 300303 assistprog 300304 tog 300305 [unknown] 300306 sns7000 300307 igprog 300308 tgprog 300309 plc 300310 pxman pxlsprog 300311 hde_server hdeserver 300312 tsslicenseprog 300313 rpc.explorerd 300314 chrd 300315 tbisam 300316 tbis 300317 adsprog 300318 sponsorprog 300319 querycmprog 300320 [unknown] 300321 [unknown] 300322 mobil1 300323 sld service_locator_daemon 300324 linkprog 300325 codexdaemonprog 300326 drprog 300327 ressys_commandsThurlow Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300328 stamp 300329 matlab 300330 sched1d 300331 upcprog 300332 xferbkch 300333 xfer 300334 qbthd 300335 qbabort 300336 lsd 300337 geomgrd 300338 generic_fts 300339 ft_ack 300340 lymb 300341 vantage 300342 cltstd clooptstdprog 300343 clui clui_prog 300344 testerd tstdprog 300345 extsim 300346 cmd_dispatch maxm_ems 300347 callpath_receive_program 300348 x3270prog 300349 sbc_lag 300350 sbc_frsa 300351 sbc_frs 300352 atommgr 300353 geostrat 300354 dbvialu6.2 300355 [unknown] 300356 fxncprog 300357 infopolic 300358 [unknown] 300359 aagns 300360 aagms 300361 [unknown] 300362 clariion_mgr 300363 setcimrpc 300364 virtual_protocol_adapter 300365 unibart 300366 uniarch 300367 unifile 300368 unisrex 300369 uniscmd 300370 rsc 300371 set 300372 desaf-ws/key 300373 reeldb 300374 nl 300375 rmdThurlow Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300376 agcd 300377 rsynd 300378 rcnlib 300379 rcnlib_attach 300380 evergreen_mgmt_agent 300381 fx104prog 300382 rui remote_user_interface 300383 ovomd 300384 [unknown] 300385 [unknown] 300386 system_server 300387 pipecs cs_pipeprog ppktrpc 300388 uv-net univision 300389 auexe 300390 audip 300391 mqi 300392 eva 300393 eeei_reserved_1 300394 eeei_reserved_2 300395 eeei_reserved_3 300396 eeei_reserved_4 300397 eeei_reserved_5 300398 eeei_reserved_6 300399 eeei_reserved_7 300400 eeei_reserved_8 300401 cprlm 300402 wg_idms_manager 300403 timequota 300404 spiff 300405-300414 ov_oem_svc 300415 ov_msg_ctlg_svc 300416 ov_advt_reg_svc 300417-300424 showkron 300425 daatd 300426 swiftnet 300427 ovomdel 300428 ovomreq 300429 msg_dispatcher 300430 pcshare server 300431 rcvs 300432 fdfserver 300433 bssd 300434 drdd 300435 mif_gutsprog 300436 mif_guiprog 300437 twolfdThurlow Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300438 twscd 300439 nwsbumv 300440 dgux_mgr 300441 pfxd 300442 tds 300443 ovomadmind 300444 ovomgate 300445 omadmind 300446 nps 300447 npd 300448 tsa 300449 cdaimc unassigned 300450-300452 300453 ckt_implementation 300454 mda-tactical unassigned 300455-300458 300459 atrrun 300460 RoadRunner 300461 nas 300462 undelete 300463 ovacadd 300464 tbdesmai 300465 arguslm 300466 dmd 300467 drd 300468 fm_help 300469 ftransrpc_prog 300470 finrisk 300471 dg_pc_idisched 300472 dg_pc_idiserv 300473 apd 300474 ap_sspd 300475 callpatheventrecorder 300476 flc 300477 dg_osm 300478 dspnamed 300479 iqddsrv 300480 iqjobsrv 300481 tacosxx 300482 wheeldbmg 300483 cnxmgr_nm_prog 300484 cnxmgr_cfg_prog 300485 3dsmapper 300486 ids 300487 imagine_rpc_svc 300488 lfn 300489 salesnet 300490 defaxoThurlow Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300491 dbqtsd 300492 kms 300493 rpc.iced 300494 calc2s 300495 ptouidprog 300496 docsls 300497 new 300498 collagebdg 300499 ars_server 300500 ars_client 300501 vr_catalog 300502 vr_tdb 300503 ama 300504 evama 300505 conama 300506 service_process 300507 reuse_proxy 300508 mars_ctrl 300509 mars_db 300510 mars_com 300511 mars_admch 300512 tbpipcip 300513 top_acs_svc 300514 inout_svc 300515 csoft_wp 300516 mcfs 300517 eventprog 300518 dg_pc_idimsg 300519 dg_pc_idiaux 300520 atsr_gc 300521 alarm alarm_prog 300522 fts_prog 300523 dcs_prog 300524 ihb_prog 300525 [unknown] 300526 [unknown] 300527 clu_info_prog 300528 rmfm 300529 c2sdocd 300530 interahelp 300531 callpathasyncmsghandler 300532 optix_arc 300533 optix_ts 300534 optix_wf 300535 maxopenc 300536 cev cev_server 300537 sitewideprog 300538 drsThurlow Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300539 drsdm 300540 dasgate 300541 dcdbd 300542 dcpsd 300543 supportlink_prog 300544 broker 300545 listner 300546 multiaccess 300547 spai_interface 300548 spai_adaption 300549 chimera_ci chimera_clientinterface 300550 chimera_pi chimera_processinvoker 300551 teamware_fl teamware_foundationlevel 300552 teamware_sl teamware_systemlevel 300553 teamware_ui teamware_userinterface 300554 lprm 300555 mpsprog Mensuration_Proxy_Server 300556 mo_symdis 300557 retsideprog 300558 slp 300559 slm-api 300560 im_rpc teamconference 300561 license_prog license 300562 stuple stuple_prog 300563 upasswd_prog 300564 gentranmentorsecurity 300565 gentranmentorprovider 300566 latituded latitude_license_server 300567 gentranmentorreq1 300568 gentranmentorreq2 300569 gentranmentorreq3 300570 rj_server 300571 gws-rdb 300572 gws-mpmd 300573 gws-spmd 300574 vwcalcd 300575 vworad 300576 vwsybd 300577 vwave 300578 online_assistant 300579 internet_assistantThurlow Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300580 spawnd 300581 procmgrg 300582 cfgdbd 300583 logutild 300584 ibis 300585 ibisaux 300586 aapi 300587 rstrt 300588 hbeat 300589 pcspu 300590 empress 300591 sched_server LiveScheduler 300592 path_server LiveScheduler 300593 c2sdmd 300594 c2scf 300595 btsas 300596 sdtas 300597 appie 300598 dmi 300599 pscd panther software corp daemon 300600 sisd 300601 cpwebserver 300602 wwcommo 300603 mx-mie 300604 mx-mie-debug 300605 idmn 300606 ssrv 300607 vpnserver 300608 samserver 300609 sams_server 300610 chrysalis 300611 ddm 300612 ddm-is 300613 mx-bcp-debug 300614 upmrd 300615 upmdsd 300616 res 300617 colortron 300618 zrs 300619 afpsrv 300620 apxft 300621 nrp 300622 hpid 300623 mailwatch 300624 fos bc_fcrb_receiverThurlow Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300625 cs_sysadmin_svr 300626 cs_controller_svr 300627 nokia_nms_eai 300628 dbg 300629 remex 300630 cs_bind 300631 idm 300632 prpasswd 300633 iw-pw 300634 starrb 300635 Impress_Server 300636 colorstar 300637 gwugui 300638 gwsgui 300639 dai_command_proxy 300640 dai_alarm_server 300641 dai_fui_proxy 300642 spai_command_proxy 300643 spai_alarm_server 300644 iris 300645 hcxttp 300646 updatedb rsched 300647 urnd urn 300648 iqwpsrv 300649 dskutild 300650 online 300651 nlserv 300652 acsm 300653 dg_clar_sormsg 300654 wwpollerrpc 300655 wwmodelrpc 300656 nsprofd 300657 nsdistd 300658 recollect 300659 lssexecd lss_res 300660 lssagend lss_rea 300661 cdinfo 300662 sninsr_addon 300663 mm-sap 300664 ks 300665 psched 300666 tekdvfs 300667 storxll 300668 nisse 300669 lbadvise 300670 atcinstaller 300671 atntstarter 300672 NetMLThurlow Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300673 tdmesmge 300674 tdmesmgd 300675 tdmesmgt 300676 olm 300677 mediamanagement 300678 rdbprog fieldowsrv 300679 rpwdprog rpwd 300680 sapi-trace 300681 sapi-master-daemon 300682 omdcuprog om-dcu 300683 wwprocmon 300684 tndidprog 300685 rkey_setsecretprog 300686 asdu_server_prog 300687 pwrcntrl 300688 siunixd 300689 wmapi 300690 cross_reference_ole 300691 rtc 300692 disp 300693 sql_compilation_agent 300694 tnsysprog 300695 ius-sapimd 300696 apteam-dx 300697 rmsrpc 300698 seismic_system 300699 remote 300700 tt1_ts_event nokia_nms 300701 fxrs 300702 onlicense 300703 vxkey 300704 dinis 300705 sched2d schedule-2 300706 sched3d schedule-3 300707 sched4d schedule-4 300708 sched5d schedule-5 300709 sched6d schedule-6 300710 sched7d schedule-7 300711 sched8d schedule-8 300712 sched9d schedule-9 300713 adtsqry 300714 adserv 300715 adrepserv 300716 [unknown] 300717 caad 300718 caaui 300719 cescda 300720 vcapiadminThurlow Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300721 vcapi20 300722 tcfs 300723 csed 300724 nothand 300725 hacb 300726 nfauth 300727 imlm 300728 bestcomm 300729 lprpasswd 300730 rprpasswd 300731 proplistd 300732 mikomomc 300733 arepa-cas 300734 [unknown] 300735 [unknown] 300736 ando_ts 300737 intermezzo 300738 ftel-sdh-request 300739 ftel-sdh-response 300740 [unknown] 300741 [unknown] 300742 [unknown] 300743 [unknown] 300744 [unknown] 300745 vrc_abb 300746 vrc_comau 300747 vrc_fanuc 300748 vrc_kuka 300749 vrc_reis 300750 hp_sv6d 300751 correntmgr01 300752 correntike 300753 [unknown] 300754 [unknown] 300755 intransa_location 300756 intransa_management 300757 intransa_federation 300758 portprot 300759 ipmiprot 300760 aceapi 300761 f6000pss 300762 vsmapi_program 300763 ubertuple 300764 ctconcrpcif 300765 mfuadmin 300766 aiols 300767 dsmrootd 300768 htdlThurlow Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 300769 caba 300770 vrc_cosimir 300771 cmhelmd 300772 polynsm 300773 [unknown] 300774 [unknown] 300775 [unknown] 300776 [unknown] 300777 [unknown] 300778 [unknown] 300779 [unknown] 300780 [unknown] 300781 dsmrecalld 300782 [unknown] 300783 [unknown] 300784 twrgcontrol 300785 twrled 300786 twrcfgdb BMC software 300787-300886 unassigned 300887 - 300999 Sun Microsystems 301000-302000 [ 2000 numbers ] unassigned 302001-349999 American Airlines 350000 - 350999 Acucobol Inc. 351000 - 351099 The Bristol Group 351100 - 351249 Amteva Technologies 351250 - 351349 351350 wfmMgmtApp 351351 wfmMgmtDataSrv 351352 wfmMgmtFut1 351353 wfmMgmtFut1 351354 wfmAPM 351355 wfmIAMgr 351356 wfmECMgr 351357 wfmLookOut 351358 wfmAgentFut1 351359 wfmAgentFut2 unassigned 351360 - 351406 Sterling Software ITD 351407 csed 351360 sched10d 351361 sched11d 351362 sched12d 351363 sched13d 351364 sched14d 351365 sched15d 351366 sched16d 351367 sched17d 351368 sched18d 351369 sched19dThurlow Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 351370 sched20d 351371 sched21d 351372 sched22d 351373 sched23d 351374 sched24d 351375 sched25d 351376 sched26d 351377 sched27d 351378 sched28d 351379 sched29d 351380 sched30d 351381 sched31d 351382 sched32d 351383 sched33d 351384 sched34d 351385 sched35d 351386 sched36d 351387 sched37d 351388 sched38d 351389 sched39d 351390 consoleserver 351391 scheduleserver 351392 RDELIVER 351393 REVENTPROG 351394 RSENDEVENTPROG 351395 snapp 351396 snapad 351397 sdsoodb 351398 sdsmain 351399 sdssrv 351400 sdsclnt 351401 sdsreg 351402 fsbatch 351403 fsmonitor 351404 fsdisp 351405 fssession 351406 fslog 351407 svdpappserv 351408 gns 351409 [unkonwn] 351410 [unkonwn] 351411 [unkonwn] 351412 axi 351413 rpcxfr 351414 slm 351415 smbpasswdd 351416 tbdbserv 351417 tbprojservThurlow Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 351418 genericserver 351419 dynarc_ds 351420 dnscmdr 351421 ipcmdr 351422 faild 351423 failmon 351424 faildebug 351425 [unknown] 351426 [unknown] 351427 siemens_srs 351428 bsproxy 351429 ifsrpc 351430 CesPvcSm 351431 FrPvcSm 351432 AtmPvcSm 351433 radius 351434 auditor 351435 sft 351436 voicemail 351437 kis 351438 SOFTSERV_NOTIFY 351439 dynarpc 351440 hc 351441 iopas 351442 iopcs 351443 iopss 351444 spcnfs 351445 spcvss 351446 matilda_sms 351447 matilda_brs 351448 matilda_dbs 351449 matilda_sps 351450 matilda_svs 351451 matilda_sds 351452 matilda_vvs 351453 matilda_stats 351454 xtrade 351455 mapsvr 351456 hp_graphicsd 351457 berkeley_db berkeley_db_svc 351458 io_server 351459 rpc.niod 351460 rpc.kill 351461 hmdisproxy 351462 smdisproxy 351463 avatard 351464 namuThurlow Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 351465 BMCSess 351466 FENS_Sport 351467 EM_CONFIG 351468 EM_CONFIG_RESP 351469 lodge_proof 351470 ARCserveIT-Queue 351471 ARCserveIT-Device 351472 ARCserveIT-Discover 351473 ARCserveIT-Alert 351474 ARCserveIT-Database 351475 scand1 351476 scand2 351477 scand3 351478 scand4 351479 scand5 351480 dscv 351481 cb_svc 351482 [unknown] 351483 iprobe 351484 omniconf 351485 isan BG Partners 351486 - 351500 351501 mond 351502 iqlremote 351503 iqlalarm unassigned 351504 - 351599 Orion Multisystems 351600-351855 unassigned 351856 - 351899 NSP lab 351900 - 351999 unassigned 351999 - 352232 352233 asautostart 352234 asmediad1 352235 asmediad2 352236 asmediad3 352237 asmediad4 352238 asmediad5 352239 asmediad6 352240 asmediad7 352241 asmediad8 352242 asmediad9 352243 asmediad10 352244 asmediad11 352245 asmediad12 352246 asmediad13 352247 asmediad14 352248 asmediad15 352249 asmediad16 352250 waruserThurlow Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 352251 warlogd 352252 warsvrmgr 352253 warvfsysd 352254 warftpd 352255 warnfsd 352256 bofproxyc0 352257 bofproxys0 352258 bofproxyc1 352259 bofproxys1 352260 bofproxyc2 352261 bofproxys2 352262 bofproxyc3 352263 bofproxys3 352264 bofproxyc4 352265 bofproxys4 352266 bofproxyc5 352267 bofproxys5 352268 bofproxyc6 352269 bofproxys6 352270 bofproxyc7 352271 bofproxys7 352272 bofproxyc8 352273 bofproxys8 352274 bofproxyc9 352275 bofproxys9 352276 bofproxyca 352277 bofproxysa 352278 bofproxycb 352279 bofproxysb 352280 bofproxycc 352281 bofproxysc 352282 bofproxycd 352283 bofproxysd 352284 bofproxyce 352285 bofproxyse 352286 bofproxycf 352287 bofproxysf 352288 bofproxypo0 352289 bofproxypo1 352290 bofproxypo2 352291 bofproxypo3 352292 bofproxypo4 unassigned 352293-370000 370001 [unknown] 370002 [unknown] 370003 [unknown] 370004 [unknown] 370005 [unknown]Thurlow Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 370006 [unknown] 370007 [unknown] 370008 [unknown] 370009 [unknown] 370010 [unknown] 370011 [unknown] 370012 [unknown] 370013 [unknown] 370014 [unknown] 370015 [unknown] 370016 [unknown] 370017 [unknown] 370018 [unknown] 370019 [unknown] 370020 [unknown] 370021 [unknown] 370022 [unknown] 370023 [unknown] 370024 [unknown] 370025 [unknown] 370026 [unknown] 370027 [unknown] unassigned 370028 - 379999 380000 opensna 380001 probenet 380002 [unknown] 380003 license 380004 na.3com-remote 380005 na.ntp 380006 probeutil 380007 na.vlb 380008 cds_mhs_agent 380009 cds_x500_agent 380010 cds_mailhub_agent 380011 codex_6500_proxy 380012 codex_6500_trapd 380013 na.nm212 380014 cds_mta_metrics_agent 380015 [unkonwn] 380016 na.caple 380017 codexcapletrap Swiss Re 380018-380028 380029 ncstat 380030 ncnfsstat 380031 ftams 380032 na.isotp 380033 na.rfc1006 unassigned 380034 - 389999Thurlow Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 Epoch Systems 390000 - 390049 Quickturn Systems 390050 - 390065 Team One Systems 390066 - 390075 General Electric CRD 390076 - 390085 TSIG NFS subcommittee 390086 - 390089 SoftLab ab 390090 - 390099 Legato Network Services 390100 - 390115 390116 cdsmonitor 390117 cdslock 390118 cdslicense 390119 shm 390120 rws 390121 cdc Data General 390122 - 390141 Perfect Byte 390142 - 390171 JTS Computer Systems 390172 - 390181 Parametric Technology 390182 - 390191 Voxem 390192 - 390199 Effix Systems 390200 - 390299 Motorola 390300 - 390309 Mobile Data Intl. 390310 - 390325 Physikalisches Institut 390326 - 390330 Ergon Informatik AG 390331 - 390340 Analog Devices Inc. 390341 - 390348 Interphase Corporation 390349 - 390358 NeWsware 390359 - 390374 Qualix Group 390375 - 390379 Xerox Imaging Systems 390380 - 390389 Noble Net 390390 - 390399 Legato Network Services 390400 - 390499 Client Server Tech. 390500 - 390511 Atria 390512 - 390517 GE NMR Instruments 390518 - 390525 Harris Corp. 390526 - 390530 Unisys 390531 - 390562 Aggregate Computing 390563 - 390572 Interactive Data 390573 - 390580 OKG AB 390581 - 390589 K2 Software 390591 - 390594 Collier Jackson 390595 - 390599 Remedy Corporation 390600 - 390699 Mentor Graphics 390700 - 390799 AT&T Bell Labs (Lucent) 390800 - 390899 Xerox 390900 - 390999 Silicon Graphics 391000 - 391063 Data General 391064 - 391095 Computer Support Corp. 391096 - 391099 Quorum Software Systems 391100 - 391199Thurlow Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 InterLinear Technology 391200 - 391209 Highland Software 391210 - 391229 Boeing Comp. Svcs. 391230 - 391249 IBM Sweden 391250 - 391259 Signature Authority Svc 391260 - 391271 ZUMTOBEL Licht GmbH 391272 - 391283 NOAA/ERL 391284 - 391299 NCR Corp. 391300 - 391399 FTP Software 391400 - 391409 Cadre Technologies 391410 - 391433 Visionware Ltd (UK) 391434 - 391439 IBR-Partner AG 391440 - 391449 CAP Programator AB 391450 - 391459 Reichle+De-Massari AG 391460 - 391474 Swiss Bank Corp (London) 391475 - 391484 Unisys Enterprise Svr 391485 - 391489 Intel - Test Dev. Tech. 391490 - 391499 Ampex 391500 - 391755 391756 naas-spare 391757 naas-admin 391758 isps 391759 isps-admin 391760 mars 391761 mars-admin 391762 attcis_spare0 391763 attcis_spare1 391764 mail-server 391765 mail-server-spare 391766 attcis_spare2 391767 attcis_spare3 391768 attcis_spare4 391769 attcis_spare5 391770 attcis_spare6 391771 attcis_spare7 Integrated Systems, Inc. 391772 - 391779 Parametric Tech., Inc. 391780 - 391789 Ericsson Telecom AB 391790 - 391799 SLAC 391800 - 391849 391850 qhrdata 391851 qhrbackup 391852 minutedata 391853 prefecture 391854 supc 391855 suadmincrw 391856 suadminotas 391857 sumessage 391858 sublock 391859 sumotdThurlow Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 staffware dev. (uk) 391860 - 391869 Staffware Dev. (UK) 391870 - 391879 391880 namesrvr 391881 disksrvr 391882 tapesrvr 391883 migsrvr 391884 pdmsrvr 391885 pvrsrvr 391886 repacksrvr 391887 [unknown] Convex Computer Corp. 391888 - 391951 391952 lookoutsrv 391953 lookoutagnt 391954 lookoutprxy 391955 lookoutsnmp 391956 lookoutrmon 391957 lookoutfut1 391958 lookoutfut2 windward 391959 - 391967 391968 sra_legato 391969 sra_legato_imgsvr 391970 sra_legato_0 391971 sra_legato_1 391972 sra_legato_2 391973 sra_legato_3 391974 sra_legato_4 391975 sra_legato_5 391976 sra_legato_6 391977 sra_legato_7 391978 sra_legato_8 391979 sra_legato_9 Brooktree Corp. 391980 - 391989 Cadence Design Systems 391990 - 391999 J. Frank & Associates 392000 - 392999 Cooperative Solutions 393000 - 393999 Xerox Corp. 394000 - 395023 395024 odbc_sqlretriever 3M 395025 - 395091 Digital Zone Intl. 395092 - 395099 Software Professionals 395100 - 395159 Del Mar Solutions 395160 - 395164 395165 ife-es 395166 ife-resmgr 395167 ife-aes 395168 ife-bite 395169 ife-loader 395170 ife-satcom 395171 ife-seatThurlow Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 395172 ife-dbmgr 395173 ife-testmgr 395174 atrium_server 395175 ase_director 395176 ase_agent 395177 ase_hsm 395178 ase_mgr 395179 ase_sim Hewlett-Packard 395180 - 395194 XES, Inc. 395195 - 395199 Unitech Products 395200 - 395249 TransSys 395250 - 395505 Unisys Govt Systems 395506 - 395519 Bellcore 395520 - 395529 IBM 395530 - 395561 AT&T Network Services 395562 - 395571 Data General 395572 - 395577 Swiss Bank Corp 395578 - 395597 Swiss Bank Corp 395598 - 395637 Novell 395638 - 395643 Computer Associates 395644 - 395650 Omneon Video Networks 395651 - 395656 unassigned 395657 - 395908 UK Post Office 395909 - 395924 AEROSPATIALE 395925 - 395944 Result d.o.o. 395945 - 395964 DataTools, Inc. 395965 - 395980 CADIS, Inc. 395981 - 395990 Cummings Group, Inc. 395991 - 395994 Cadre Technologies 395995 - 395999 American Airlines 396000 - 396999 Ericsson Telecom TM Div 397000 - 398023 IBM 398024 - 398028 Toshiba OME Works 398029 - 398033 TUSC Computer Systems 398034 - 398289 AT&T 398290 - 398320 Ontario Hydro 398321 - 398346 Micrion Corporation 398347 - 398364 unassigned 398365 - 398591 Pegasystems, Inc. 398592 - 399616 Spectra Securities Soft 399617 - 399850 QualCom 399851 - 399866 unassigned 399867 - 399884 Altris Software Ltd. 399885 - 399899 ISO/IEC WG11 399900 - 399919 Parametric Technology 399920 - 399949 Dolby Laboratories 399950 - 399981 unassigned 399982 - 399991Thurlow Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 Xerox PARC 399992 - 399999 # Next Inc. 200100000 - 200199999 Netwise (RPCtool) 200200000 Concurrent Computer Corp 200200001 - 200200007 AIM Technology 200300000 - 200399999 TGV 200400000 - 200499999 # # Sun-assigned authentication flavor numbers # AUTH_NONE 0 /* no authentication, seeRFC 1831 */ /* a.k.a. AUTH_NULL */ AUTH_SYS 1 /* unix style (uid+gids),RFC 1831 */ /* a.k.a. AUTH_UNIX */ AUTH_SHORT 2 /* short hand unix style,RFC 1831 */ AUTH_DH 3 /* des style (encrypted timestamp) */ /* a.k.a. AUTH_DES, seeRFC 2695 */ AUTH_KERB 4 /* kerberos auth, seeRFC 2695 */ AUTH_RSA 5 /* RSA authentication */ RPCSEC_GSS 6 /* GSS-based RPC security for auth, integrity and privacy, RPC 5403 */ AUTH_NW 30001 NETWARE AUTH_SEC 200000 TSIG NFS subcommittee AUTH_ESV 200004 SVr4 ES AUTH_NQNFS 300000 Univ. of Guelph - Not Quite NFS AUTH_GSSAPI 300001 OpenVision <john.linn@ov.com> AUTH_ILU_UGEN 300002 Xerox <janssen@parc.xerox.com> - ILU Unsecured Generic Identity # # Small blocks are assigned out of the 39xxxx series of numbers # AUTH_SPNEGO 390000 390000 - 390255 NFS 'pseudo' flavors for RPCSEC_GSS 390003 - kerberos_v5 authentication,RFC 2623 390004 - kerberos_v5 with data integrity,RFC 2623 390005 - kerberos_v5 with data privacy,RFC 2623 200000000 Reserved 200100000 NeXT Inc.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2203] Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification",RFC 2203, September 1997. [RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", STD 67,RFC 4506, May 2006.Informative References [DH] Diffie & Hellman, "New Directions in Cryptography", IEEE Transactions on Information Theory IT-22, November 1976. [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6,RFC 768, August 1980. [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,RFC793, September 1981. [RFC1094] Sun Microsystems, "NFS: Network File System Protocol specification",RFC 1094, March 1989. [RFC1813] Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification",RFC 1813, June 1995. [RFC1831] Srinivasan, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2",RFC 1831, August 1995. [RFC1833] Srinivasan, R., "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",RFC 1833, August 1995. [RFC2623] Eisler, M., "NFS Version 2 and Version 3 Security Issues and the NFS Protocol's Use of RPCSEC_GSS and Kerberos V5",RFC 2623, June 1999. [RFC2695] Chiu, A., "Authentication Mechanisms for ONC RPC",RFC2695, September 1999. [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Version 2, Update 1",RFC 2743, January 2000. [RFC3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R., Beame, C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol",RFC 3530, April 2003.Thurlow Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 5226, May 2008. [VMTP] Cheriton, D., "VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol", Preliminary Version 0.3, Stanford University, January 1987. [XRPC] Birrell, A. D. & B. J. Nelson, "Implementing Remote Procedure Calls", XEROX CSL-83-7, October 1983.Author's Address Robert Thurlow Sun Microsystems, Inc. 500 Eldorado Boulevard, UBRM05-171 Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 877-718-3419 EMail: robert.thurlow@sun.comThurlow Standards Track [Page 63]
[8]ページ先頭