null  null
Network Working Group
Request for Comments: 5531
Obsoletes: 1831
Category: Standards Track
R. Thurlow
Sun Microsystems
May 2009
RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 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 obsoletes RFC 1831.
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 1]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
2. Changes since RFC 1831 ..........................................3
3. Terminology .....................................................3
4. The RPC Model ...................................................4
5. Transports and Semantics ........................................5
6. Binding and Rendezvous Independence .............................7
7. Authentication ..................................................7
8. RPC Protocol Requirements .......................................7
8.1. RPC Programs and Procedures ................................8
8.2. Authentication, Integrity, and Privacy .....................9
8.3. Program Number Assignment .................................10
8.4. Other Uses of the RPC Protocol ............................10
8.4.1. Batching ...........................................10
8.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls ...................11
9. The RPC Message Protocol .......................................11
10. Authentication Protocols ......................................15
10.1. Null Authentication ......................................15
11. Record Marking Standard .......................................16
12. The RPC Language ..............................................16
12.1. An Example Service Described in the RPC Language .........17
12.2. The RPC Language Specification ...........................18
12.3. Syntax Notes .............................................18
13. IANA Considerations ...........................................19
13.1. Numbering Requests to IANA ...............................19
13.2. Protecting Past Assignments ..............................19
13.3. RPC Number Assignment ....................................19
13.3.1. To be assigned by IANA ............................20
13.3.2. Defined by Local Administrator ....................20
13.3.3. Transient Block ...................................20
13.3.4. Reserved Block ....................................21
13.3.5. RPC Number Sub-Blocks .............................21
13.4. RPC Authentication Flavor Number Assignment ..............22
13.4.1. Assignment Policy .................................22
13.4.2. Auth Flavors vs. Pseudo-Flavors ...................23
13.5. Authentication Status Number Assignment ..................23
13.5.1. Assignment Policy .................................23
14. Security Considerations .......................................24
Appendix A: System Authentication .................................25
Appendix B: Requesting RPC-Related Numbers from IANA .............26
Appendix C: Current Number Assignments ...........................27
Normative References .............................................62
Informative References ...........................................62
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 2]
RFC 5531
1.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
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 since RFC 1831
This document obsoletes [RFC1831] as the authoritative document
describing RPC, without introducing any over-the-wire protocol
changes. The main changes from RFC 1831 are:
3.
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 statements
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 of
Thurlow
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 wellspecified 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 wellspecified 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 choose
Thurlow
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 on
Thurlow
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 timeouts, 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
6.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
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 in Section 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 called
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 7]
RFC 5531
8.1.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
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.
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
(This is usually a
[Page 8]
RFC 5531
8.2.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
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
=
AUTH_SYS
=
AUTH_SHORT
=
AUTH_DH
=
RPCSEC_GSS
=
/* and more to be
};
0,
1,
2,
3,
6
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
8.3.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
Program Number Assignment
Program numbers are given out in groups according to the following
chart:
0x00000000
0x00000001 - 0x1fffffff
0x20000000 - 0x3fffffff
0x40000000
0x60000000
0x7f000000
0x80000000
-
0x5fffffff
0x7effffff
0x7fffffff
0xffffffff
Reserved
To be assigned by IANA
Defined by local administrator
(some blocks assigned here)
Transient
Reserved
Assignment outstanding
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 in Appendix 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
8.4.2.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls
In broadcast protocols, the client sends
network and waits for numerous replies.
packet-based protocols (like UDP) as its
that support broadcast protocols usually
is successfully processed and are silent
this varies with the application.
a broadcast call to the
This requires the use of
transport protocol. Servers
respond only when the call
in the face of errors, but
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
PROG_UNAVAIL
PROG_MISMATCH
PROC_UNAVAIL
GARBAGE_ARGS
SYSTEM_ERR
};
{
=
=
=
=
=
=
0,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
RPC executed successfully
remote hasn’t exported program
remote can’t support version #
program can’t support procedure
procedure can’t decode params
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" and Appendix 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 in Appendix 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 in Appendix 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
11.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
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
12.1.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
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
12.2.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
The RPC Language Specification
The RPC language is identical to the XDR language defined in RFC
4506, 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-specifier
12.3.
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
13.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
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 IANA
Appendix 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 in Appendix C. Current authentication status numbers are
listed in Section 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 in Section 8.3. Detailed information
for the administration of the partitioned blocks in Section 8.3 is
given below.
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 19]
RFC 5531
13.3.1.
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
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 and
Thurlow
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 in Section 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 by Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
Size of sub-block
----------------Up to 100 numbers
Up to 1000 numbers
More than 1000 numbers
Assignment Method
----------------First Come First Served
Specification Required
IESG Approval required
Authority
--------IANA
IANA
IESG
Note: sub-blocks can be any size. The limits given above are
maximums, and smaller size sub-blocks are allowed.
Sub-blocks
Come First
range must
a minimum,
Thurlow
sized up to 100 numbers may be assigned by IANA on a First
Served basis. The RPC Service Description included in the
include an indication of how the sub-block is managed. At
the statement should indicate whether the sub-block is
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 Policy
Appendix 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
o
The short identifier string(s)
o
The auth number(s) assigned
o
The short description of purpose and use
13.4.2.
May 2009
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 in Section 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 Policy
Appendix 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
The short identifier string(s)
o
The auth_stat number(s) assigned
o
The short description of purpose and use
14.
o
May 2009
Security Considerations
AUTH_SYS as described in Appendix 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 Sections 8.2 and 13.4.2 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 nontrivial 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 2009
Appendix 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 2009
Appendix 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 <[email protected]> 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 in Section 4.2 of [RFC2623]
Specific numbers cannot be requested.
First Come First Served basis.
Numbers are assigned on a
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 2009
Appendix 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_prog
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 27]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
pnp install
ip addr allocator
show filehandle
MVS NFS mount
remote user file operations
batched ypupdate
network execution mgr
raytrace/mandelbrot remote daemon
raytrace/mandelbrot local daemon
remote group file operations
remote system file operations
remote system role operations
gpd lego fb simulator
gpd simulator interface
ioadmd
filemerge
Name Binding Program
sunlink NJE
MVSNFS get attribute service
SunAccess/SunLink resource manager
UID allocation service
license broker
NETlicense client binder
GID allocation service
SunIsam
Remote Debug Server
Network Directory Daemon
Network Calendar Program
ypxfrd
rpc.timed
bugtraqd
100041
100042
100043
100044
100045
100046
100047
100048
100049
100050
100051
100052
100053
100054
100055
100056
100057
100058
100059
100060
100061
100062
100063
100064
100065
100066
100067
100068
100069
100070
100071
100072
Connectathon Billboard - NFS
100073
Connectathon Billboard - X
100074
Sun tool for scheduling rooms
100075
Authentication Negotiation
100076
Database manipulation
100077
Kerberos authentication daemon
100078
Internal testing product (no name) 100079
Sun Consulting Special
100080
Event protocol
100081
bugtraq_qd
100082
ToolTalk and Link Service Project 100083
Consulting Services
100084
Consulting Services
100085
Consulting Services
100086
Jupiter Administration
100087
100088
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
pnp_prog
ipaddr_alloc_prog
filehandle
mvsnfsprog
rem_fileop_user_prog
batch_ypupdateprog
nem_prog
raytrace_rd_prog
raytrace_ld_prog
rem_fileop_group_prog
rem_fileop_system_prog
rem_system_role_prog
[unknown]
[unknown]
ioadmd
filemerge_prog
namebind_prog
njeprog
mvsattrprog
rmgrprog
uidallocprog
lbserverprog
lbbinderprog
gidallocprog
sunisamprog
rdbsrvprog
[unknown]
cmsd cm
ypxfrd
timedprog
bugtraqd
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
schedroom
authnegotiate_prog
attribute_prog
kerbprog
[unknown]
autodump_prog
event_svc
bugtraq_qd
database service
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
adm_agent admind
[unknown]
[Page 28]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
100089
100090
100091
100092
100093
100094
100095
100096
100097
100098
100099
100100
event dispatching agent [eventd]
100101
statistics/event logger [netlogd] 100102
topology display manager [topology]100103
syncstat agent [syncstatd]
100104
ip packet stats agent [ippktd]
100105
netmgt config agent [configd]
100106
restat agent [restatd]
100107
lpq agent [lprstatd]
100108
netmgt activity agent [mgtlogd]
100109
proxy DECnet NCP agent [proxydni] 100110
topology mapper agent [mapperd]
100111
netstat agent [netstatd]
100112
sample netmgt agent [sampled]
100113
X.25 statistics agent [vcstatd]
100114
Frame Relay
100128
PPP agent
100129
localhad
100130
layers2
100131
token ring agent
100132
related to lockd and statd
100133
Kerberos project
100134
ertherif2
100135
hostmem2
100136
iostat2
100137
snmpv2
100138
Cooperative Console
100139
na.cpustat
100140
Sun Cluster SC3.0
100141
100142
Network Storage
100143
Sun Cluster products
100144
SunCluster 3.0
100145
ASN.1
100146
100147
Dual Disk support
DocViewer 1.1
ToolTalk
Consulting Services
SNA peer-to-peer
Roger Riggs
Robert Allen
SNA
SISU
NFS Automount File System
Delegate Management Server
Thurlow
100148
Standards Track
May 2009
[unknown]
libdsd/dsd
[unknown]
remote_activation_svc
host_checking
[unknown]
searchit
mesgtool
[unknown]
networked version of CS5
autofs
msgboard
netmgt_eventd_prog
netmgt_netlogd_prog
netmgt_topology_prog
netmgt_syncstatd_prog
netmgt_ippktd_prog
netmgt_configd_prog
netmgt_restatd_prog
netmgt_lprstatd_prog
netmgt_mgtlogd_prog
netmgt_proxydni_prog
netmgt_mapperd_prog
netmgt_netstatd_prog
netmgt_sampled_prog
netmgt_vcstatd_prog
[unknown]
[unknown]
rpc.localhad
na.layers2
na.tr
nsm_addr
kwarn
na.etherif2
na.hostmem2
na.iostat2
na.snmpv2
cc_sender
na.cpustat
rgmd_receptionist
fed
rdc
nafo
scadmd
amiserv
amiaux # BER and DER
encode and decode
dm
[Page 29]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
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
100173 - 100174
100175
na.snmptrap
100176-100199
unassigned
snmptrap
unassigned
unassigned
MVS/NFS Memory usage stats server
Netapp
unassigned
8.0 SunLink SNA RJE
8.0 SunLink SNA RJE
AUTH_RSA Key service
SunSelect PC license service
WWCS (Corporate)
X/Open Federated Naming
Kodak Color Management System
HA-DBMS
NFS ACL Service
distributed lock manager
Thurlow
May 2009
100200
100201
[unknown]
100202-100207
100208-100210
100211
[unknown]
100212
[unknown]
100213
ShowMe
100214
[unknown]
100215
[unknown]
100216
keyrsa
100217
[unknown]
100218
sunsolve
100219
cstatd
100220
xfn_server_prog
100221
kcs_network_io kcs
100222
ha_dbms_serv
100223-100225
[unknown]
100226
hafaultd
100227
nfs_acl
100228
dlmd
Standards Track
[Page 30]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
100229
100230
100231
100232
100233
100234
100235
100236
100237
100238
100239
100240
100241
100242
100243
100244
100245
100246
metad
metamhd
nfsauth
sadmind
ufsd
grpservd
cachefsd
msmprog Media_Server
ihnamed
ihnetd
ihsecured
ihclassmgrd
ihrepositoryd
metamedd rpc.metamedd
contentmanager cm
symon
pld genesil
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_cb
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 31]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
NIS+
NIS+
NIS+ call back protocol
NIS+ Password Update Daemon
FNS context update in NIS
unassigned
nfscksum
network utilization agent
network rpc ping agent
picsprint
rdmaconfig
IETF NFSv4 Working Group - FedFS
unassigned
Sun Microsystems
unassigned
nse link daemon
nse link application
unassigned
unassigned
AssetLite
PagerTool
Discover
unassigned
ShowMe
Registry
Print-server
Proto-server
Thurlow
100300
100301
100302
100303
100304
100305
100306
100307
100308
100309
100310
100399
100400
100401
100402
100403
100404
100405
100410
100411
100412
100413
100414
100415
100416
100417
100418
100422
100423
100424
100425
100500
100532
100533
100534
101002
101003
101004
101901
101902
102000
102001
102002
102003
105001
105002
105003
105004
Standards Track
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 2009
nisplus
nis_cachemgr
[unknown]
nispasswdd
fnsypd
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
100398
nfscksum
netmgt_netu_prog
netmgt_rping_prog
na.shell
na.picslp
traps
100409 [unknown]
jdsagent
na.haconfig
na.halhost
na.hadtsrvc
na.hamdstat
na.neoadmin
ex1048prog
rpc.rdmaconfig
100421
mdcommd
kiprop krb5_iprop
stsf
100499
100531 [unknown]
ucmmstate
scrcmd
100999
nselinktool
nselinkapp
101900
[unknown]
101999
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
105000
sharedapp
REGISTRY_PROG
print-server
proto-server
[Page 32]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
Notification-server
Transfer-agent-server
unassigned
unassigned
unassigned
unassigned
pc passwd authorization
TOPS name mapping
TOPS external attribute storage
TOPS hierarchical file system
TOPS NFS transparency extensions
PC NFS License
RDA
WabiServer
WabiServer
unassigned
unassigned
unassigned
Thurlow
105005
105006
105007
110001
110002
110003
120001
120002
120003
120004
120100
120101
120102
120103
120104
120105
120126
120127
120128
150001
150002
150003
150004
150005
150006
150007
150008
150009
150010
160001
160002
160003
170100
170101
170102
170103
170104
170105
170106
180000
180001
180002
180003
180004
180005
180006
180007
180008
Standards Track
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 2009
notification-server
transfer-agent-server
110000
tsolrpcb
tsolpeerinfo
tsolboot
cmip na.cmip
na.osidiscover
cmiptrap
120099
eserver
repserver
swserver
dmd
ca
120125
nf_fddi
nf_fddismt7_2
150000
pcnfsdprog
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
pcnfslicense
rdaprog
wsprog
wsrlprog
160000
nihon-cm
nihon-ce
170099
domf_daemon0
domf_daemon1
domf_daemon2
domf_daemon3
domf_daemon4
domf_daemon5
179999
cecprog
cecsysprog
cec2cecprog
cesprog
ces2cesprog
cet2cetprog
cet2cetdoneprog
cetcomprog
cetsysprog
[Page 33]
RFC 5531
unassigned
Thurlow
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
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_metadata
Standards Track
[Page 34]
RFC 5531
unassigned
unassigned
Thurlow
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
200025 - 200200
200201
ecoad
200202
eamon
200203
ecolic
200204
cs_printstatus_svr
200205
ecodisc
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
cms
Standards Track
[Page 35]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300042
300043
300044
300045
300046
300047
300048
300049
300050
300051
300052
300053
300054
300055
300056
300057
300058
300059
300060
300061
300062
300063
300064
300065
300066
300067
300068
300069
300070
300071
300072
300073
300074
300075
300076
300077
300078
300079
300080
300081
300082
300083
300084
300085
300086
300087
300088
300089
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
viewer
aqm
exclaim
masterplan
fig_tool
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
remote-lock-manager
[unknown]
gdebug
ldebug
rscanner
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
nSERVER
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
BioStation
[unknown]
NetProb
Logging
Logging
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
sw_twin
remote_get_login
odcprog
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[Page 36]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300090
300091
300092
300093
300094
300095
300096
300097
300098
300099
300100
300101
300102
300103
300104
300105
300106
300107
300108
300109
300110
300111
300112
300113
300114
300115
300116
300117
300118
300119
300120
300121
300122
300123
300124
300125
300126
300127
300128
300129
300130
300131
300132
300133
300134
300135
300136
300137
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
[unknown]
smartdoc
superping
distributed-chembench
uacman/alfil-uacman
ait_rcagent_prog
ait_rcagent_appl_prog
smart
ecoprog
leonardo
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
wingz
teidan
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
cadc_fhlockprog
highscan
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
opennavigator
aarpcxfer
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
groggs
licsrv
issdemon
[unknown]
maximize
cgm_server
[unknown]
agent_rpc
docmaker
docmaker
[unknown]
[unknown]
[Page 37]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300138
300139
300140
300141
300142
300143
300144
300145
300146
300147
300148
300149
300150
300151
300152
300153
300154
300155
300156
300157
300158
300159
300160
300161
300162
300163
300164
300165
300166
300167
300168
300169
300170
300171
300172
300173
300174
300175
300176
300177
300178
300179
300180
300181
300182
300183
300184
300185
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
[unknown]
iesx
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
smart-mbs
[unknown]
[unknown]
docimage
[unknown]
dmc-interface
[unknown]
jss
[unknown]
arimage
xdb-workbench
frontdesk
dmc
expressight-6000
graph service program
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
rlpr
nx_hostdprog
netuser-x
rmntprog
[unknown]
mipe
[unknown]
collectorprog
uslookup_PROG
viewstation
[Page 38]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300186
300187
300188
300189
300190
300191
300192
300193
300194
300195
300196
300197
300198
300199
300200
300201
300202
300203
300204
300205
300206
300207
300208
300209
300210
300211
300212
300213
300214
300215
300216
300217
300218
300219
300220
300221
300222
300223
300224
300225
300226
300227
300228
300229
300230
300231
300232
300233
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
iate
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
imsvtprog
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
pmdb
pmda
[unknown]
[unknown]
trend_idbd
rres
sd.masterd
sd.executiond
sd.listend
sd.reserve1
sd.reserve2
msbd
stagedprog
mountprog
watchdprog
pms
[unknown]
session_server_program
session_program
debug_serverprog
[unknown]
[unknown]
paceprog
[unknown]
mbus
aframes2ps
npartprog
cm1server
cm1bridge
sailfrogfaxprog
sailfrogphoneprog
sailfrogvmailprog
wserviceprog arcstorm
hld
alive
radsp
radavx
radview
rsys_prog
rsys_prog
[Page 39]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300234
300235
300236
300237
300238
300239
300240
300241
300242
300243
300244
300245
300246
300247
300248
300249
300250
300251
300252
300253
300254
300255
300256
300257
300258
300259
300260
300261
300262
300263
300264
300265
300266
300267
300268
300269
300270
300271
300272
300273
300274
300275
300276
300277
300278
300279
300280
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
fm_rpc_prog
aries
uapman
ddman
top
[unknown]
trendlink
licenseprog
statuslicenseprog
oema_rmpf_svc
oema_smpf_svc
oema_rmsg_svc
grapes-sd
ds_master
ds_transfer
ds_logger
ds_query
[unknown]
[unknown]
nsd_prog
browser
epoch
floorplanner
reach
tactic
cachescientific1
cachescientific2
desksrc_prog
photo3d1
photo3d2
[unknown]
soundmgr
s6k
aims_referenced_
text_processor
xess
ds_queue
[unknown]
orionscanplus
openlink-xx
kbmsprog
[unknown]
futuresource
the_xprt
cmg_srvprog
[unknown]
[unknown]
front
[Page 40]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300281
300282
300283
300284
300285
300286
300287
300288
300289
300290
300291
300292
300293
300294
300295
300296
300297
300298
300299
300300
300301
300302
300303
300304
300305
300306
300307
300308
300309
300310
300311
300312
300313
300314
300315
300316
300317
300318
300319
300320
300321
300322
300323
300324
300325
300326
300327
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
conmanprog
jincv2
isls
systemstatprog
fxpsprog
callpath
axess
armor_rpcd
armor_dictionary_rpcd
armor_miscd
filetransfer_prog
bl_swda
bl_hwda
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
filemon
acunetprog
rbuild
assistprog
tog
[unknown]
sns7000
igprog
tgprog
plc
pxman pxlsprog
hde_server hdeserver
tsslicenseprog
rpc.explorerd
chrd
tbisam
tbis
adsprog
sponsorprog
querycmprog
[unknown]
[unknown]
mobil1
sld
service_locator_daemon
linkprog
codexdaemonprog
drprog
ressys_commands
[Page 41]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300328
300329
300330
300331
300332
300333
300334
300335
300336
300337
300338
300339
300340
300341
300342
300343
300344
300345
300346
300347
300348
300349
300350
300351
300352
300353
300354
300355
300356
300357
300358
300359
300360
300361
300362
300363
300364
300365
300366
300367
300368
300369
300370
300371
300372
300373
300374
300375
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
stamp
matlab
sched1d
upcprog
xferbkch
xfer
qbthd
qbabort
lsd
geomgrd
generic_fts
ft_ack
lymb
vantage
cltstd clooptstdprog
clui clui_prog
testerd tstdprog
extsim
cmd_dispatch maxm_ems
callpath_receive_program
x3270prog
sbc_lag
sbc_frsa
sbc_frs
atommgr
geostrat
dbvialu6.2
[unknown]
fxncprog
infopolic
[unknown]
aagns
aagms
[unknown]
clariion_mgr
setcimrpc
virtual_protocol_adapter
unibart
uniarch
unifile
unisrex
uniscmd
rsc
set
desaf-ws/key
reeldb
nl
rmd
[Page 42]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
300376
300377
300378
300379
300380
300381
300382
agcd
rsynd
rcnlib
rcnlib_attach
evergreen_mgmt_agent
fx104prog
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
twolfd
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 43]
RFC 5531
unassigned
unassigned
Thurlow
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
300450-300452
300453
ckt_implementation
300454
mda-tactical
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
defaxo
Standards Track
[Page 44]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300491
300492
300493
300494
300495
300496
300497
300498
300499
300500
300501
300502
300503
300504
300505
300506
300507
300508
300509
300510
300511
300512
300513
300514
300515
300516
300517
300518
300519
300520
300521
300522
300523
300524
300525
300526
300527
300528
300529
300530
300531
300532
300533
300534
300535
300536
300537
300538
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
dbqtsd
kms
rpc.iced
calc2s
ptouidprog
docsls
new
collagebdg
ars_server
ars_client
vr_catalog
vr_tdb
ama
evama
conama
service_process
reuse_proxy
mars_ctrl
mars_db
mars_com
mars_admch
tbpipcip
top_acs_svc
inout_svc
csoft_wp
mcfs
eventprog
dg_pc_idimsg
dg_pc_idiaux
atsr_gc
alarm alarm_prog
fts_prog
dcs_prog
ihb_prog
[unknown]
[unknown]
clu_info_prog
rmfm
c2sdocd
interahelp
callpathasyncmsghandler
optix_arc
optix_ts
optix_wf
maxopenc
cev cev_server
sitewideprog
drs
[Page 45]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300539
300540
300541
300542
300543
300544
300545
300546
300547
300548
300549
300550
300551
300552
300553
300554
300555
300556
300557
300558
300559
300560
300561
300562
300563
300564
300565
300566
300567
300568
300569
300570
300571
300572
300573
300574
300575
300576
300577
300578
300579
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
drsdm
dasgate
dcdbd
dcpsd
supportlink_prog
broker
listner
multiaccess
spai_interface
spai_adaption
chimera_ci
chimera_clientinterface
chimera_pi
chimera_processinvoker
teamware_fl
teamware_foundationlevel
teamware_sl
teamware_systemlevel
teamware_ui
teamware_userinterface
lprm
mpsprog
Mensuration_Proxy_Server
mo_symdis
retsideprog
slp
slm-api
im_rpc teamconference
license_prog license
stuple stuple_prog
upasswd_prog
gentranmentorsecurity
gentranmentorprovider
latituded
latitude_license_server
gentranmentorreq1
gentranmentorreq2
gentranmentorreq3
rj_server
gws-rdb
gws-mpmd
gws-spmd
vwcalcd
vworad
vwsybd
vwave
online_assistant
internet_assistant
[Page 46]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
300580
300581
300582
300583
300584
300585
300586
300587
300588
300589
300590
300591
spawnd
procmgrg
cfgdbd
logutild
ibis
ibisaux
aapi
rstrt
hbeat
pcspu
empress
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_receiver
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 47]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300625
300626
300627
300628
300629
300630
300631
300632
300633
300634
300635
300636
300637
300638
300639
300640
300641
300642
300643
300644
300645
300646
300647
300648
300649
300650
300651
300652
300653
300654
300655
300656
300657
300658
300659
300660
300661
300662
300663
300664
300665
300666
300667
300668
300669
300670
300671
300672
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
cs_sysadmin_svr
cs_controller_svr
nokia_nms_eai
dbg
remex
cs_bind
idm
prpasswd
iw-pw
starrb
Impress_Server
colorstar
gwugui
gwsgui
dai_command_proxy
dai_alarm_server
dai_fui_proxy
spai_command_proxy
spai_alarm_server
iris
hcxttp
updatedb rsched
urnd urn
iqwpsrv
dskutild
online
nlserv
acsm
dg_clar_sormsg
wwpollerrpc
wwmodelrpc
nsprofd
nsdistd
recollect
lssexecd lss_res
lssagend lss_rea
cdinfo
sninsr_addon
mm-sap
ks
psched
tekdvfs
storxll
nisse
lbadvise
atcinstaller
atntstarter
NetML
[Page 48]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300673
300674
300675
300676
300677
300678
300679
300680
300681
300682
300683
300684
300685
300686
300687
300688
300689
300690
300691
300692
300693
300694
300695
300696
300697
300698
300699
300700
300701
300702
300703
300704
300705
300706
300707
300708
300709
300710
300711
300712
300713
300714
300715
300716
300717
300718
300719
300720
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
tdmesmge
tdmesmgd
tdmesmgt
olm
mediamanagement
rdbprog fieldowsrv
rpwdprog rpwd
sapi-trace
sapi-master-daemon
omdcuprog om-dcu
wwprocmon
tndidprog
rkey_setsecretprog
asdu_server_prog
pwrcntrl
siunixd
wmapi
cross_reference_ole
rtc
disp
sql_compilation_agent
tnsysprog
ius-sapimd
apteam-dx
rmsrpc
seismic_system
remote
tt1_ts_event nokia_nms
fxrs
onlicense
vxkey
dinis
sched2d schedule-2
sched3d schedule-3
sched4d schedule-4
sched5d schedule-5
sched6d schedule-6
sched7d schedule-7
sched8d schedule-8
sched9d schedule-9
adtsqry
adserv
adrepserv
[unknown]
caad
caaui
cescda
vcapiadmin
[Page 49]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
300721
300722
300723
300724
300725
300726
300727
300728
300729
300730
300731
300732
300733
300734
300735
300736
300737
300738
300739
300740
300741
300742
300743
300744
300745
300746
300747
300748
300749
300750
300751
300752
300753
300754
300755
300756
300757
300758
300759
300760
300761
300762
300763
300764
300765
300766
300767
300768
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
vcapi20
tcfs
csed
nothand
hacb
nfauth
imlm
bestcomm
lprpasswd
rprpasswd
proplistd
mikomomc
arepa-cas
[unknown]
[unknown]
ando_ts
intermezzo
ftel-sdh-request
ftel-sdh-response
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
[unknown]
vrc_abb
vrc_comau
vrc_fanuc
vrc_kuka
vrc_reis
hp_sv6d
correntmgr01
correntike
[unknown]
[unknown]
intransa_location
intransa_management
intransa_federation
portprot
ipmiprot
aceapi
f6000pss
vsmapi_program
ubertuple
ctconcrpcif
mfuadmin
aiols
dsmrootd
htdl
[Page 50]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
BMC software
unassigned
Sun Microsystems
unassigned
American Airlines
Acucobol Inc.
The Bristol Group
Amteva Technologies
unassigned
Sterling Software ITD
Thurlow
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
300787-300886
300887 - 300999
301000-302000 [ 2000 numbers ]
302001-349999
350000 - 350999
351000 - 351099
351100 - 351249
351250 - 351349
351350
wfmMgmtApp
351351
wfmMgmtDataSrv
351352
wfmMgmtFut1
351353
wfmMgmtFut1
351354
wfmAPM
351355
wfmIAMgr
351356
wfmECMgr
351357
wfmLookOut
351358
wfmAgentFut1
351359
wfmAgentFut2
351360 - 351406
351407
csed
351360
sched10d
351361
sched11d
351362
sched12d
351363
sched13d
351364
sched14d
351365
sched15d
351366
sched16d
351367
sched17d
351368
sched18d
351369
sched19d
Standards Track
[Page 51]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
351370
351371
351372
351373
351374
351375
351376
351377
351378
351379
351380
351381
351382
351383
351384
351385
351386
351387
351388
351389
351390
351391
351392
351393
351394
351395
351396
351397
351398
351399
351400
351401
351402
351403
351404
351405
351406
351407
351408
351409
351410
351411
351412
351413
351414
351415
351416
351417
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
sched20d
sched21d
sched22d
sched23d
sched24d
sched25d
sched26d
sched27d
sched28d
sched29d
sched30d
sched31d
sched32d
sched33d
sched34d
sched35d
sched36d
sched37d
sched38d
sched39d
consoleserver
scheduleserver
RDELIVER
REVENTPROG
RSENDEVENTPROG
snapp
snapad
sdsoodb
sdsmain
sdssrv
sdsclnt
sdsreg
fsbatch
fsmonitor
fsdisp
fssession
fslog
svdpappserv
gns
[unkonwn]
[unkonwn]
[unkonwn]
axi
rpcxfr
slm
smbpasswdd
tbdbserv
tbprojserv
[Page 52]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
351418
351419
351420
351421
351422
351423
351424
351425
351426
351427
351428
351429
351430
351431
351432
351433
351434
351435
351436
351437
351438
351439
351440
351441
351442
351443
351444
351445
351446
351447
351448
351449
351450
351451
351452
351453
351454
351455
351456
351457
351458
351459
351460
351461
351462
351463
351464
Thurlow
Standards Track
May 2009
genericserver
dynarc_ds
dnscmdr
ipcmdr
faild
failmon
faildebug
[unknown]
[unknown]
siemens_srs
bsproxy
ifsrpc
CesPvcSm
FrPvcSm
AtmPvcSm
radius
auditor
sft
voicemail
kis
SOFTSERV_NOTIFY
dynarpc
hc
iopas
iopcs
iopss
spcnfs
spcvss
matilda_sms
matilda_brs
matilda_dbs
matilda_sps
matilda_svs
matilda_sds
matilda_vvs
matilda_stats
xtrade
mapsvr
hp_graphicsd
berkeley_db
berkeley_db_svc
io_server
rpc.niod
rpc.kill
hmdisproxy
smdisproxy
avatard
namu
[Page 53]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
BG Partners
unassigned
Orion Multisystems
unassigned
NSP lab
unassigned
Thurlow
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
351486 - 351500
351501
mond
351502
iqlremote
351503
iqlalarm
351504 - 351599
351600-351855
351856 - 351899
351900 - 351999
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
waruser
Standards Track
[Page 54]
RFC 5531
unassigned
Thurlow
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
352293-370000
370001
[unknown]
370002
[unknown]
370003
[unknown]
370004
[unknown]
370005
[unknown]
Standards Track
[Page 55]
RFC 5531
unassigned
Swiss Re
unassigned
Thurlow
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]
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
380018-380028
380029
ncstat
380030
ncnfsstat
380031
ftams
380032
na.isotp
380033
na.rfc1006
380034 - 389999
Standards Track
[Page 56]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
Epoch Systems
Quickturn Systems
Team One Systems
General Electric CRD
TSIG NFS subcommittee
SoftLab ab
Legato Network Services
Data General
Perfect Byte
JTS Computer Systems
Parametric Technology
Voxem
Effix Systems
Motorola
Mobile Data Intl.
Physikalisches Institut
Ergon Informatik AG
Analog Devices Inc.
Interphase Corporation
NeWsware
Qualix Group
Xerox Imaging Systems
Noble Net
Legato Network Services
Client Server Tech.
Atria
GE NMR Instruments
Harris Corp.
Unisys
Aggregate Computing
Interactive Data
OKG AB
K2 Software
Collier Jackson
Remedy Corporation
Mentor Graphics
AT&T Bell Labs (Lucent)
Xerox
Silicon Graphics
Data General
Computer Support Corp.
Quorum Software Systems
Thurlow
390000
390050
390066
390076
390086
390090
390100
390116
390117
390118
390119
390120
390121
390122
390142
390172
390182
390192
390200
390300
390310
390326
390331
390341
390349
390359
390375
390380
390390
390400
390500
390512
390518
390526
390531
390563
390573
390581
390591
390595
390600
390700
390800
390900
391000
391064
391096
391100
Standards Track
-
-
May 2009
390049
390065
390075
390085
390089
390099
390115
cdsmonitor
cdslock
cdslicense
shm
rws
cdc
390141
390171
390181
390191
390199
390299
390309
390325
390330
390340
390348
390358
390374
390379
390389
390399
390499
390511
390517
390525
390530
390562
390572
390580
390589
390594
390599
390699
390799
390899
390999
391063
391095
391099
391199
[Page 57]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
InterLinear Technology
Highland Software
Boeing Comp. Svcs.
IBM Sweden
Signature Authority Svc
ZUMTOBEL Licht GmbH
NOAA/ERL
NCR Corp.
FTP Software
Cadre Technologies
Visionware Ltd (UK)
IBR-Partner AG
CAP Programator AB
Reichle+De-Massari AG
Swiss Bank Corp (London)
Unisys Enterprise Svr
Intel - Test Dev. Tech.
Ampex
Integrated Systems, Inc.
Parametric Tech., Inc.
Ericsson Telecom AB
SLAC
Thurlow
391200
391210
391230
391250
391260
391272
391284
391300
391400
391410
391434
391440
391450
391460
391475
391485
391490
391500
391756
391757
391758
391759
391760
391761
391762
391763
391764
391765
391766
391767
391768
391769
391770
391771
391772
391780
391790
391800
391850
391851
391852
391853
391854
391855
391856
391857
391858
391859
Standards Track
-
-
May 2009
391209
391229
391249
391259
391271
391283
391299
391399
391409
391433
391439
391449
391459
391474
391484
391489
391499
391755
naas-spare
naas-admin
isps
isps-admin
mars
mars-admin
attcis_spare0
attcis_spare1
mail-server
mail-server-spare
attcis_spare2
attcis_spare3
attcis_spare4
attcis_spare5
attcis_spare6
attcis_spare7
391779
391789
391799
391849
qhrdata
qhrbackup
minutedata
prefecture
supc
suadmincrw
suadminotas
sumessage
sublock
sumotd
[Page 58]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
staffware dev. (uk)
Staffware Dev. (UK)
Convex Computer Corp.
windward
Brooktree Corp.
Cadence
Design Systems
J. Frank & Associates
Cooperative Solutions
Xerox Corp.
3M
Digital Zone Intl.
Software Professionals
Del Mar Solutions
Thurlow
391860
391870
391880
391881
391882
391883
391884
391885
391886
391887
391888
391952
391953
391954
391955
391956
391957
391958
391959
391968
391969
391970
391971
391972
391973
391974
391975
391976
391977
391978
391979
391980
391990
392000
393000
394000
395024
395025
395092
395100
395160
395165
395166
395167
395168
395169
395170
395171
Standards Track
May 2009
- 391869
- 391879
namesrvr
disksrvr
tapesrvr
migsrvr
pdmsrvr
pvrsrvr
repacksrvr
[unknown]
- 391951
lookoutsrv
lookoutagnt
lookoutprxy
lookoutsnmp
lookoutrmon
lookoutfut1
lookoutfut2
- 391967
sra_legato
sra_legato_imgsvr
sra_legato_0
sra_legato_1
sra_legato_2
sra_legato_3
sra_legato_4
sra_legato_5
sra_legato_6
sra_legato_7
sra_legato_8
sra_legato_9
- 391989
- 391999
- 392999
- 393999
- 395023
odbc_sqlretriever
- 395091
- 395099
- 395159
- 395164
ife-es
ife-resmgr
ife-aes
ife-bite
ife-loader
ife-satcom
ife-seat
[Page 59]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
Hewlett-Packard
XES, Inc.
Unitech Products
TransSys
Unisys Govt Systems
Bellcore
IBM
AT&T Network Services
Data General
Swiss Bank Corp
Swiss Bank Corp
Novell
Computer Associates
Omneon Video Networks
unassigned
UK Post Office
AEROSPATIALE
Result d.o.o.
DataTools, Inc.
CADIS, Inc.
Cummings Group, Inc.
Cadre Technologies
American Airlines
Ericsson Telecom TM Div
IBM
Toshiba OME Works
TUSC Computer Systems
AT&T
Ontario Hydro
Micrion Corporation
unassigned
Pegasystems, Inc.
Spectra Securities Soft
QualCom
unassigned
Altris Software Ltd.
ISO/IEC WG11
Parametric Technology
Dolby Laboratories
unassigned
Thurlow
395172
395173
395174
395175
395176
395177
395178
395179
395180
395195
395200
395250
395506
395520
395530
395562
395572
395578
395598
395638
395644
395651
395657
395909
395925
395945
395965
395981
395991
395995
396000
397000
398024
398029
398034
398290
398321
398347
398365
398592
399617
399851
399867
399885
399900
399920
399950
399982
Standards Track
-
May 2009
ife-dbmgr
ife-testmgr
atrium_server
ase_director
ase_agent
ase_hsm
ase_mgr
ase_sim
395194
395199
395249
395505
395519
395529
395561
395571
395577
395597
395637
395643
395650
395656
395908
395924
395944
395964
395980
395990
395994
395999
396999
398023
398028
398033
398289
398320
398346
398364
398591
399616
399850
399866
399884
399899
399919
399949
399981
399991
[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, see RFC 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, see RFC 2695 */
AUTH_KERB
4
/* kerberos auth, see RFC 2695 */
AUTH_RSA
5
/* RSA authentication */
RPCSEC_GSS
6
/* GSS-based RPC security for auth,
integrity and privacy, RPC 5403 */
AUTH_NW
AUTH_SEC
AUTH_ESV
30001
200000
200004
NETWARE
TSIG NFS subcommittee
SVr4 ES
AUTH_NQNFS
AUTH_GSSAPI
AUTH_ILU_UGEN
300000
300001
300002
Univ. of Guelph - Not Quite NFS
OpenVision <[email protected]>
Xerox <[email protected]>
- 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
200100000
Thurlow
Reserved
NeXT Inc.
Standards Track
[Page 61]
RFC 5531
Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
May 2009
Normative 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, RFC
793, 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", RFC
2695, 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: [email protected]
Thurlow
Standards Track
[Page 63]
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement