Network Working Group                                        T J Dimitri
Internet Draft                                                 Microsoft
expires in six months                                      June 16, 1994
<draft-ietf-pppext-netbios-fcp-05.txt>

            The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP)



Status of this Memo

   This document is a submission of the Point-to-Point Protocol Working
   Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).  Comments should
   be submitted to the ietf-ppp@merit.edu mailing list.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   This document is an Internet Draft.  Internet Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
   and its Working Groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet Drafts.

   Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months.  Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
   ``working draft'' or ``work in progress.''

   Please check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the
   internet-drafts Shadow Directories on nic.ddn.mil, ds.internic.net,
   venera.isi.edu, nic.nordu.net, or munnari.oz.au to learn the current
   status of any Internet Draft.

Abstract

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

   The NBF protocol was originally called the NetBEUI protocol and
   was used in versions of DOS and OS/2 LAN Manager.  It is now used
   in Microsoft Windows NT and Microsoft Windows for Workgroups.  This
   document defines the Network Control Protocol for establishing and
   configuring the NBF protocol over PPP.





Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page i]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


   The NBFCP protocol is only applicable for an end system to connect
   to a peer system or the LAN that peer system is connected to.  It
   is not applicable for connecting two LANs together due to NetBIOS
   name limitations and NetBIOS name defense mechanisms.















































Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994             [Page ii]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


1.  Introduction

   PPP has three main components:

      1. A method for encapsulating multi-protocol datagrams.

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

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

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

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


1.1.  Specification of Requirements

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

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

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

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

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



Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 1]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


1.2.  Terminology

   This document frequently uses the following terms:

   peer      The other end of the point-to-point link.

   silently discard
             This means the implementation discards the packet without
             further processing.  The implementation SHOULD provide the
             capability of logging the error, including the contents of
             the silently discarded packet, and SHOULD record the event
             in a statistics counter.

   end-system A user's machine.  It only sends packets to servers and
             other end-systems.  It doesn't pass any packets through
             itself.

   router    Allows packets to pass through, usually from one ethernet
             segment to another.  Sometimes these are called
             "intermediate-systems".

   bridge    Allows packets to pass through with the data field
             unmodified.  Usually from one ethernet segment to another
             or from one ethernet segment to a token-ring segment.

   gateway   Allows packets to be sent from one network protocol to
             the same or different network protocol.  For example,
             NetBIOS packets from an NBF network to a TCP/IP network
             which has implemented RFC 1001 and RFC 1002.

   local access only server A server which does not pass any packets
             through itself to other servers.


2.  A PPP Network Control Protocol for NBF

   The NBF Control Protocol (NBFCP) is responsible for configuring,
   enabling, and disabling the NBF protocol modules on both ends of the
   point-to-point link.  NBFCP uses the same packet exchange mechanism
   as the Link Control Protocol.  NBFCP packets may not be exchanged
   until PPP has reached the Network-Layer Protocol phase.  NBFCP
   packets received before this phase is reached should be silently
   discarded.

   The NBF Control Protocol is exactly the same as the Link Control
   Protocol [1] with the following exceptions:





Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 2]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994

   Frame Modifications

      The packet may utilize any modifications to the basic frame format
      which have been negotiated during the Link Establishment phase.


   Data Link Layer Protocol Field

      Exactly one NBFCP packet is encapsulated in the Information field
      of a PPP Data Link Layer frame where the Protocol field indicates
      type hex 803f (NBF Control Protocol).

   Code field

      Only Codes 1 through 7 (Configure-Request, Configure-Ack,
      Configure-Nak, Configure-Reject, Terminate-Request, Terminate-Ack
      and Code-Reject) are used.  Other Codes should be treated as
      unrecognized and should result in Code-Rejects.

   Timeouts

      NBFCP packets may not be exchanged until PPP has reached the
      Network-Layer Protocol phase.  An implementation should be
      prepared to wait for Authentication and Link Quality Determination
      to finish before timing out waiting for a Configure-Ack or other
      response.  It is suggested that an implementation give up only
      after user intervention or a configurable amount of time.  Also,
      because NetBIOS name defense takes time (typically a minimum of
      3 seconds if names are added in parallel), it is suggested that
      if Name-Projection is negotiated, the timeouts are increased to 10
      seconds.

   Configuration Option Types

      NBFCP has a distinct set of Configuration Options.



2.1.  Sending NBF Datagrams

   Before any NBF packets may be communicated, PPP must reach the
   Network-Layer Protocol phase, and the NBF Control Protocol must reach
   the Opened state.

   Unlesss otherwise negotiated, exactly one NBF packet is encapsulated
   in the Information field of a PPP Data Link Layer frame where the
   Protocol field indicates type hex 003f (NBF datagram).

   Since NBF datagrams for PPP do not contain a datagram length field,
   the encapsulated NBF packet MUST NOT contain any extra octet padding
   except when Self-Defining-Padding is negotiated.

Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 3]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


   The maximum length of an NBF datagram transmitted over a PPP link is
   the same as the maximum length of the Information field of a PPP data
   link layer frame.  Since there is no standard method for fragmenting
   and reassembling NBF datagrams, PPP links supporting NBF MUST allow
   at least 576 octets in the information field of a data link layer
   frame.  It is recommended that an implementation allow 1500 octets in
   the information field unless the IEEE MAC Address Header Required
   boolean option is negotiated (see below).

2.2   Bridging NBF Datagrams

   There exists at least four different MAC header implementations for
   NBF packets: 802.3 Ethernet, 802.5 Token-Ring, DIX Ethernet, and
   FDDI.  Because NBF is not a routable protocol, some PPP
   implementations may require IEEE MAC addresses to properly route
   or bridge NBF packets.  Some PPP implementations may require the
   entire MAC media header in order to properly route or bridge NBF
   packets.  Other smarter implementations may only require the IEEE MAC
   addreses, and still other implementations (such as NetBIOS gateways)
   may not require any MAC address fields.  NBFCP implementations which
   require IEEE Addresses should negotiate the NBFCP IEEE MAC Address
   Required boolean configuartion option so that the MAC header can be
   provided in the NBF packet.

   If the IEEE MAC Address Header Required boolean configuration option
   is negotiated, all NBF datagrams MUST be sent with the specified 12
   octet IEEE MAC address header.  Because negotiation of this option
   occurs after the LCP phase, if this option is negotiated, NBF packets
   may exceed the negotiated PPP MRU size.  Thus, a PPP implementation
   which negotiates this option MUST allow reception of PPP NBF packets
   with an information field 12 octets larger than the negotiated MRU
   size.

2.3   NetBIOS Name Defense

   A large part of how NetBIOS works is based on unique names.  These
   NetBIOS names must be  defended to ensure that only owner of the
   unique name much like it is best if there is only one owner to an
   IP address.  However, because NetBIOS was not designed with routing
   in mind, name defenses are done with multicast packets.  Before
   adding a NetBIOS name, the end system first sends out several
   multicast packets (typically three packets spaced one second apart)
   asking every end system if it hs already added that unique name.
   If the end system, it responds with a direct packet back indicating
   so and the name is not added.  When an end system is booted and the
   network is started, certain NetBIOS names may be added.  If the end
   system then makes a PPP connection, there is a chance that some of
   the NetBIOS names already added are not unique on the peer system's
   network.  In order to prevent this problem, it is suggested that
   end systems use the Name-Projection configuration option.

Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 4]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


3.  NBFCP Configuration Options

   NBFCP Configuration Options allow modifications to the standard
   characteristics of the network-layer protocol to be negotiated.  If a
   Configuration Option is not included in a Configure-Request packet,
   the default value for that Configuration Option is assumed.

   NBFCP uses the same Configuration Option format defined for LCP [1],
   with a separate set of Options.

   Up-to-date values of the NBFCP Option Type field are specified in the
   most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [2].  Current values are assigned
   as follows:

      1       Name-Projection
      2       Peer-Information
      3       Multicast-Filtering
      4       IEEE MAC Address Required


3.1.  Name-Projection

   Description

      This Configuration Option provides a method for the peer to
      provide the other peer of the NetBIOS names on its network.  The
      sender of the Configure-Request states which NetBIOS names should
      be added by the remote peer.  More than one Name-Projection option
      MAY appear in a single Configure-Request.

      Implementations which do not attempt to add any NetBIOS names MUST
      Configure-Reject the Name-Projection Configuration Option.

      If the Name-Projection Configuration Option is not offered by the
      remote peer, but is required by the local peer, the local
      peer should Configure-Nak the request and indicate that it wishes
      the remote peer to add zero NetBIOS names because it is the
      only known acceptable value.  The remote peer may then terminate
      NBFCP, attempt to add zero NetBIOS names, or attempt add one or
      more NetBIOS names.

      When not all NetBIOS names can be added by the peer, it MUST
      return a Configure-Nak with the complete list of names requested.
      Those names which could be added have the Added field set to zero.
      Those names which could not be added have the Added field set to
      an appropriate non-zero return code.  The implementation SHOULD
      resend the Configure-Request with the smaller list of names.




Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 5]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


      The implementation may choose to fail configuration if the
      complete list of NetBIOS names is not accepted.  By failing,
      the implementation should terminate NBFCP by sending a
      Terminate-Request packet.

      Because adding NetBIOS names can take time (usually 3 seconds)
      and because PPP may default the restart timer to 3 seconds, the
      restart timer SHOULD default to 10 seconds when configuring
      NetBIOS names.

   A summary of the Name-Projection Configuration Option format is
   shown below.  The fields are transmitted from left to right.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |      1st NetBIOS-Name
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   1st NetBIOS-Name (cont.)
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   1st NetBIOS-Name (cont.)
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   1st NetBIOS-Name (cont.)
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   1st NetBIOS-Name (cont.)    |    Added      |2nd NetBIOS Name...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Type

      1

   Length

      2 + (Number of NetBIOS names * 17)

   NetBIOS-Names

      This group of zero or more sixteen octet NetBIOS-Name fields
      contains a list of all the NetBIOS names the peer wishes to add to
      the remote network if the packet is Configure-Request.  If the
      packet is Configure-Reject, the peer does not support this
      configuration option and it can be assumed that no NetBIOS names
      were added.

      Because the length field is only one octet, only 14 NetBIOS names
      can be added per Name-Projection option.  If more than 14 NetBIOS
      names should be added, then more than one Name-Projection option
      packet will have to be sent in the Configure-Request packet.


Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 6]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


   Added

      This is a one octet field which plays a dual role.  The Added
      field in the Name-Projection Request packet contains the type of
      NetBIOS name added.  A summary of name types is listed below.

         01   Unique Name.
         02   Group Name.

      If the packet is a Configure-Reject the Added field should contain
      the NetBIOS return code for the NetBIOS Add Name or NetBIOS Add
      Group Name command as defined in the NetBIOS 3.0 specification [3].
      A summary of common result codes is listed below in type hex.

         00   Name successfully added.
         0D   Duplicate name in local name table.
         0E   Name table full.
         15   Name not found or cannot specify "*" or null.
         16   Name in use on remote NetBIOS.
         19   Name conflict detected.
         30   Name defined by another environment.
         35   Required system resources exhausted.

3.2.  Peer-Information

   Description

      This Configuration Option provides a way to obtain information
      about the peer providing the one side of the PPP connection.

      Although the nature of this option is not mandatory, it is
      suggested.  It is provided as a means of improving an end
      system's ability to provide information from peer to peer
      about one side of the PPP connection for NBF packet format,
      user interface, and logging purposes.
















Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 7]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


   A summary of the Peer-Information Option format is shown below.  The
   fields are transmitted from left to right.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |         Peer-class            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Peer-version (major)   |       Peer-version (minor)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Peer-name ....
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Type

      2

   Length

      >=8

      If the length is 8, there is no Peer-name.  If the length is
      greater than 8, the Peer-name's length is Length - 8.

   Peer-class

      The Peer-class field is one octet and indicates the class
      of the communication peer providing the one side of the
      PPP connection.





















Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 8]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


      Initial values are assigned as follows:

      Value           Class

        1             Microsoft PPP NetBIOS Gateway Server.

        2             Generic PPP NetBIOS Gateway Server.

        3             Microsoft PPP Local Access Only Server.

        4             Generic PPP Local Access Only Server.

        5             Reserved.

        6             Generic PPP NBF Bridge.

        7             Microsoft PPP End-System.

        8             Generic PPP End-System.

   Peer-version

      The Peer-version field is four octets and indicates the version of
      the communication peer providing one side of the PPP connection.
      The first two octets are the major version number and the last two
      octets are the minor version number.  The major and minor version
      represent a 16 bit unsigned number sent with the most significant
      octet first.

   Peer-name

      The name of the peer.  A suggested name is the NetBIOS workstation
      name of the peer.  If the length field is 8, no peer name is
      provided.  The peer-name may not be greater than 32 octets in
      length.


3.3.  Multicast-Filtering

   Description

      This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of
      the Multicast-Forward-Period and the Multicast-Priority.  This
      Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate how to handle
      mulicast packets.  It allows the sender of the Configure-Request
      to state the current handling of multicast packets.  The peer can
      request parameters by NAKing the option, and returning valid
      Multicast-Filtering parameters.



Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994              [Page 9]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994

      If negotiation about the remote Multicast-Filtering is required,
      and the peer did not provide the option in its Configure-Request,
      the option SHOULD be appended to a Configure-Nak.

      Controlling the multicast rate is important because some NetBIOS
      applications use multicasts to communicate and withholding
      multicasts may prevent these applications from working.  It also
      true that other NetBIOS applications do not need to receive
      any multicast packets and therefore it is best to quench the
      rate at which the peer will receive multicast packets.

      By default, the peer is pre-configured to an administrator
      assigned Multicast-Forward-Period and Priority.  A
      Multicast-Forward-Period specified as hex type FFFF in a
      Configure-Request shall be interpreted as requesting the remote
      peer to specify a value via Configure-Nak.  A
      Multicast-Forward-Period value specified as hex type FFFF in
      Configure-Nak shall be interpreted as agreement that no value
      exists.  A Multicast-Forward-Period of zero shall indicate that
      all multicast packets SHOULD be forwarded.  A
      Multicast-Forward-Period of five shall be interpreted that
      a multicast datagram will be sent no more than once every five
      seconds.

      An implementation which requires the Requested
      Multicast-Filtering option SHOULD fail configuration if the
      remote peer fails to provide the requested value.

      Peers that rely on all multicast packets forwarded SHOULD
      request a Multicast-Forward-Period of zero and a
      Multicast-Priority of one by NAKing the Configure-Request
      option and appending the proper parameters to a Configure-Nak.

   A summary of the Multicast-Filtering Configuration Option format is
   shown below.  The fields are transmitted from left to right.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |    Multicast-Forward-Period   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Priority    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      3

   Length

      5

Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994             [Page 10]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


   Multicast-Forward-Period

      The Multicast-Forward-Period field is two octets and indicates
      the maximum period in seconds at which multicast packets can
      be sent.  The maximum value for this field is 60 (one minute).
      A value of zero indicates that there is no maximum period at
      which multicast packets can be sent.  A value of hex type FFFF
      indicates that the Multicast-Forward-Period is unknown.  A value
      of five indicates that multicast packets will no be sent at a
      rate more frequent than once every five seconds.  This two
      octet quantity represents a 16 bit unsigned number sent with
      the most significant octet first.


   Priority

      The Priority field is two octets and indicates if multicast
      packets have priority over other packets when being sent.  A value
      of 0 indicates that directed packets have priority.  A value of 1
      indicates that multicast packets have priority.


3.4.  IEEE MAC Address Required

   Description

      This boolean Configuration Option provides a method for the peer
      to require that all NBF datagrams be sent with a 12 octet IEEE MAC
      Address header.  By default, it is assumed that no MAC header is
      required.

   A summary of the IEEE MAC Address Required Boolean Configuration
   Option format is shown below.  The fields are transmitted from left
   to right.

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      4

   Length

      2



Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994             [Page 11]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994


   Requirements

      The default is that no MAC address is required.  The NBF datagram
      is sent without any MAC header information.  The NBF datagram
      information field is equivalent to the data field in 802.3, 802.5,
      and FDDI frames (not DIX Ethernet).

      If this option is negotiated a 12 octet IEEE MAC address header is
      required.  Each NBF datagram is sent with a 12 octet IEEE MAC
      Address header prepended to the information field.  A summary of
      the information field when using 12 octet IEEE MAC Headers is shown
      below.  The fields are transmitted from left to right.  The MAC
      Address is in non-canonical form.  "Non-canonical" is the address
      format defined as the bit within each byte that is to be
      transmitted first is the most significant bit.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Destination MAC Address                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Destination MAC Address   |  Source MAC Address           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Source MAC Address                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               802.3/802.5/FDDI data field...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
























Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994             [Page 12]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                     June 16, 1994






Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.


References

   [1]   Simpson, W. A., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", RFC 1548,
         June 16, 1992.

   [2]   Reynolds, J.K., Postel, J.B., "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1340,
         July 1992.

   [3]   IBM Corp., "IBM Local Area Network Technical Reference",
         Third Edition, February 1988.

   [4]   Baker, F., Bowen R., "PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)",
         work in progress.


Acknowledgments

   Some of the text in this document is taken from previous documents
   produced by the Point-to-Point Protocol Working Group of the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF).

   Special thanks go to coworkers at Microsoft, Bill Simpson
   (Daydreamer), Tom Coradetti (DigiBoard), Marty Del Vecchio (Shiva),
   Russ Gocht (Shiva) and several members of the IETF PPP Working Group.



















Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994             [Page 13]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                    June 16, 1994




Chair's Address

   The working group can be contacted via the current chair:

      Fred Baker
      Advanced Computer Communications
      315 Bollay Drive
      Santa Barbara, California, 93111

      EMail: fbaker@acc.com


Author's Address

   Questions about this memo can also be directed to:

      Gurdeep Singh Pall
      Microsoft Corporation
      1 Microsoft Way
      Redmond, WA 98052-6399

      EMail: tommyd@microsoft.com




























Dimitri                  Expires December 16, 1994             [Page 14]
DRAFT                            NBFCP                    June 16, 1994


                           Table of Contents


     1.     Introduction ..........................................    1
        1.1       Specification of Requirements ...................    1
        1.2       Terminology .....................................    2

     2.     A PPP Network Control Protocol for NBF ................    2
        2.1       Sending NBF Datagrams ...........................    3
        2.2       Bridging NBF Datagrams...........................    4
        2.3       NetBIOS Name Defense.............................    4

     3.     NBFCP Configuration Options ...........................    5
        3.1       Name-Projection..................................    5
        3.2       Peer-Information.................................    7
        3.3       Multicast-Filtering..............................    9
        3.4       IEEE MAC Address Required........................   11

     SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................   13

     REFERENCES ...................................................   13

     ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................   13

     CHAIR'S ADDRESS ..............................................   14

     AUTHOR'S ADDRESS .............................................   14
