Network Working Group R. Thurlow
Request for Comments: 5531 Sun Microsystems
Obsoletes: 1831 May 2009
Category: Standards Track
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 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
1. 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:
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
3. 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 well-
specified location (such as a register window). It then transfers
control to the procedure, and eventually regains control. At that
point, the results of the procedure are extracted from the well-
specified location, and the caller continues execution.
The remote procedure call model is similar. One thread of control
logically winds through two processes: the caller's process and a
server's process. The caller first sends a call message to the
server process and waits (blocks) for a reply message. The call
message includes the procedure's parameters, and the reply message
includes the procedure's results. Once the reply message is
received, the results of the procedure are extracted, and the
caller's execution is resumed.
On the server side, a process is dormant awaiting the arrival of a
call message. When one arrives, the server process extracts the
procedure's parameters, computes the results, sends a reply message,
and then awaits the next call message.
In this model, only one of the two processes is active at any given
time. However, this model is only given as an example. The ONC RPC
protocol makes no restrictions on the concurrency model implemented,
and others are possible. For example, an implementation may 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 time-
outs, and does not receive a reply, it cannot infer anything about
the number of times the procedure was executed. If it does receive a
reply, then it can infer that the procedure was executed at least
once.
A server may wish to remember previously granted requests from a
client and not regrant them, in order to insure some degree of
execute-at-most-once semantics. A server can do this by taking
advantage of the transaction ID that is packaged with every RPC
message. The main use of this transaction ID is by the client RPC
entity in matching replies to calls. However, a client application
may choose to reuse its previous transaction ID when retransmitting a
call. The server may choose to remember this ID after executing a
call and not execute calls with the same ID, in order to achieve some
degree of execute-at-most-once semantics. The server is not allowed
to examine this ID in any other way except as a test for equality.
On the other hand, if using a "reliable" transport such as TCP, the
application can infer from a reply message that the procedure was
executed exactly once, but if it receives no reply message, it cannot
assume that the remote procedure was not executed. Note that even if
a connection-oriented protocol like TCP is used, an application still
needs time-outs and reconnections to handle server crashes.
There are other possibilities for transports besides datagram- or
connection-oriented protocols. For example, a request-reply protocol
such as [VMTP] is perhaps a natural transport for RPC. ONC RPC
currently uses both TCP and UDP transport protocols. Section 11
("Record Marking Standard") describes the mechanism employed by ONC
RPC to utilize a connection-oriented, stream-oriented transport such
as TCP. The mechanism by which future transports having different
structural characteristics should be used to transfer ONC RPC
messages should be specified by means of a Standards Track RFC, once
such additional transports are defined.
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
6. 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 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
8.1. RPC Programs and Procedures
The RPC call message has three unsigned-integer fields -- remote
program number, remote program version number, and remote procedure
number -- that uniquely identify the procedure to be called. Program
numbers are administered by a central authority (IANA). Once
implementors have a program number, they can implement their remote
program; the first implementation would most likely have the version
number 1 but MUST NOT be the number zero. Because most new protocols
evolve, a "version" field of the call message identifies which
version of the protocol the caller is using. Version numbers enable
support of both old and new protocols through the same server
process.
The procedure number identifies the procedure to be called. These
numbers are documented in the specific program's protocol
specification. For example, a file service's protocol specification
may state that its procedure number 5 is "read" and procedure number
12 is "write".
Just as remote program protocols may change over several versions,
the actual RPC message protocol could also change. Therefore, the
call message also has in it the RPC version number, which is always
equal to 2 for the version of RPC described here.
The reply message to a request message has enough information to
distinguish the following error conditions:
o The remote implementation of RPC does not support protocol version
2. The lowest and highest supported RPC version numbers are
returned.
o The remote program is not available on the remote system.
o The remote program does not support the requested version number.
The lowest and highest supported remote program version numbers
are returned.
o The requested procedure number does not exist. (This is usually a
client-side protocol or programming error.)
o The parameters to the remote procedure appear to be garbage from
the server's point of view. (Again, this is usually caused by a
disagreement about the protocol between client and service.)
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
8.2. Authentication, Integrity, and Privacy
Provisions for authentication of caller to service and vice-versa are
provided as a part of the RPC protocol. The call message has two
authentication fields: the credential and the verifier. The reply
message has one authentication field: the response verifier. The RPC
protocol specification defines all three fields to be the following
opaque type (in the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language
[RFC4506]):
enum auth_flavor {
AUTH_NONE = 0,
AUTH_SYS = 1,
AUTH_SHORT = 2,
AUTH_DH = 3,
RPCSEC_GSS = 6
/* and more to be defined */
};
struct opaque_auth {
auth_flavor flavor;
opaque body<400>;
};
In other words, any "opaque_auth" structure is an "auth_flavor"
enumeration followed by up to 400 bytes that are opaque to
(uninterpreted by) the RPC protocol implementation.
The interpretation and semantics of the data contained within the
authentication fields are specified by individual, independent
authentication protocol specifications.
If authentication parameters were rejected, the reply message
contains information stating why they were rejected.
As demonstrated by RPCSEC_GSS, it is possible for an "auth_flavor" to
also support integrity and privacy.
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
8.3. Program Number Assignment
Program numbers are given out in groups according to the following
chart:
0x00000000 Reserved
0x00000001 - 0x1fffffff To be assigned by IANA
0x20000000 - 0x3fffffff Defined by local administrator
(some blocks assigned here)
0x40000000 - 0x5fffffff Transient
0x60000000 - 0x7effffff Reserved
0x7f000000 - 0x7fffffff Assignment outstanding
0x80000000 - 0xffffffff Reserved
The first group is a range of numbers administered by IANA and should
be identical for all sites. The second range is for applications
peculiar to a particular site. This range is intended primarily for
debugging new programs. When a site develops an application that
might be of general interest, that application should be given an
assigned number in the first range. Application developers may apply
for blocks of RPC program numbers in the first range by methods
described 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 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
8.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls
In broadcast protocols, the client sends a broadcast call to the
network and waits for numerous replies. This requires the use of
packet-based protocols (like UDP) as its transport protocol. Servers
that support broadcast protocols usually respond only when the call
is successfully processed and are silent in the face of errors, but
this varies with the application.
The principles of broadcast RPC also apply to multicasting -- an RPC
request can be sent to a multicast address.
9. The RPC Message Protocol
This section defines the RPC message protocol in the XDR data
description language [RFC4506].
enum msg_type {
CALL = 0,
REPLY = 1
};
A reply to a call message can take on two forms: the message was
either accepted or rejected.
enum reply_stat {
MSG_ACCEPTED = 0,
MSG_DENIED = 1
};
Given that a call message was accepted, the following is the status
of an attempt to call a remote procedure.
enum accept_stat {
SUCCESS = 0, /* RPC executed successfully */
PROG_UNAVAIL = 1, /* remote hasn't exported program */
PROG_MISMATCH = 2, /* remote can't support version # */
PROC_UNAVAIL = 3, /* program can't support procedure */
GARBAGE_ARGS = 4, /* procedure can't decode params */
SYSTEM_ERR = 5 /* e.g. memory allocation failure */
};
Reasons why a call message was rejected:
enum reject_stat {
RPC_MISMATCH = 0, /* RPC version number != 2 */
AUTH_ERROR = 1 /* remote can't authenticate caller */
};
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
Why authentication failed:
enum auth_stat {
AUTH_OK = 0, /* success */
/*
* failed at remote end
*/
AUTH_BADCRED = 1, /* bad credential (seal broken) */
AUTH_REJECTEDCRED = 2, /* client must begin new session */
AUTH_BADVERF = 3, /* bad verifier (seal broken) */
AUTH_REJECTEDVERF = 4, /* verifier expired or replayed */
AUTH_TOOWEAK = 5, /* rejected for security reasons */
/*
* failed locally
*/
AUTH_INVALIDRESP = 6, /* bogus response verifier */
AUTH_FAILED = 7, /* reason unknown */
/*
* AUTH_KERB errors; deprecated. See [RFC2695]
*/
AUTH_KERB_GENERIC = 8, /* kerberos generic error */
AUTH_TIMEEXPIRE = 9, /* time of credential expired */
AUTH_TKT_FILE = 10, /* problem with ticket file */
AUTH_DECODE = 11, /* can't decode authenticator */
AUTH_NET_ADDR = 12, /* wrong net address in ticket */
/*
* RPCSEC_GSS GSS related errors
*/
RPCSEC_GSS_CREDPROBLEM = 13, /* no credentials for user */
RPCSEC_GSS_CTXPROBLEM = 14 /* problem with context */
};
As new authentication mechanisms are added, there may be a need for
more status codes to support them. IANA will hand out new auth_stat
numbers on a simple First Come First Served basis as defined in the
"IANA Considerations" 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 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
11. Record Marking Standard
When RPC messages are passed on top of a byte stream transport
protocol (like TCP), it is necessary to delimit one message from
another in order to detect and possibly recover from protocol errors.
This is called record marking (RM). One RPC message fits into one RM
record.
A record is composed of one or more record fragments. A record
fragment is a four-byte header followed by 0 to (2**31) - 1 bytes of
fragment data. The bytes encode an unsigned binary number; as with
XDR integers, the byte order is from highest to lowest. The number
encodes two values -- a boolean that indicates whether the fragment
is the last fragment of the record (bit value 1 implies the fragment
is the last fragment) and a 31-bit unsigned binary value that is the
length in bytes of the fragment's data. The boolean value is the
highest-order bit of the header; the length is the 31 low-order bits.
(Note that this record specification is NOT in XDR standard form!)
12. The RPC Language
Just as there was a need to describe the XDR data-types in a formal
language, there is also need to describe the procedures that operate
on these XDR data-types in a formal language as well. The RPC
language is an extension to the XDR language, with the addition of
"program", "procedure", and "version" declarations. The keywords
"program" and "version" are reserved in the RPC language, and
implementations of XDR compilers MAY reserve these keywords even when
provided with pure XDR, non-RPC, descriptions. The following example
is used to describe the essence of the language.
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
12.1. An Example Service Described in the RPC Language
Here is an example of the specification of a simple ping program.
program PING_PROG {
/*
* Latest and greatest version
*/
version PING_VERS_PINGBACK {
void
PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0;
/*
* Ping the client, return the round-trip time
* (in microseconds). Returns -1 if the operation
* timed out.
*/
int
PINGPROC_PINGBACK(void) = 1;
} = 2;
/*
* Original version
*/
version PING_VERS_ORIG {
void
PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0;
} = 1;
} = 1;
const PING_VERS = 2; /* latest version */
The first version described is PING_VERS_PINGBACK with two
procedures: PINGPROC_NULL and PINGPROC_PINGBACK. PINGPROC_NULL takes
no arguments and returns no results, but it is useful for computing
round-trip times from the client to the server and back again. By
convention, procedure 0 of any RPC protocol should have the same
semantics and never require any kind of authentication. The second
procedure is used for the client to have the server do a reverse ping
operation back to the client, and it returns the amount of time (in
microseconds) that the operation used. The next version,
PING_VERS_ORIG, is the original version of the protocol, and it does
not contain the PINGPROC_PINGBACK procedure. It is useful for
compatibility with old client programs, and as this program matures,
it may be dropped from the protocol entirely.
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
12.2. 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 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
13. 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 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
13.3.1. To Be Assigned By IANA
The first block will be administered by IANA, with previous
assignments by Sun protected. Previous assignments were restricted
to the range decimal 100000-399999 (0x000186a0 to 0x00061a7f);
therefore, IANA will begin assignments at decimal 400000. Individual
numbers should be grated on a First Come First Served basis, and
blocks should be granted under rules related to the size of the
block.
13.3.2. Defined by Local Administrator
The "Defined by local administrator" block is available for any local
administrative domain to use, in a similar manner to IP address
ranges reserved for private use. The expected use would be through
the establishment of a local domain "authority" for assigning numbers
from this range. This authority would establish any policies or
procedures to be used within that local domain for use or assignment
of RPC numbers from the range. The local domain should be
sufficiently isolated that it would be unlikely that RPC applications
developed by other local domains could communicate with the domain.
This could result in RPC number contention, which would cause one of
the applications to fail. In the absence of a local administrator,
this block can be utilized in a "Private Use" manner per [RFC5226].
13.3.3. Transient Block
The "Transient" block can be used by any RPC application on an "as
available" basis. This range is intended for services that can
communicate a dynamically selected RPC program number to clients of
the service. Any mechanism can be used to communicate the number.
For example, either shared memory when the client and server are
located on the same system or a network message (either RPC or
otherwise) that disseminates the selected number can be used.
The transient block is not administered. An RPC service uses this
range by selecting a number in the transient range and attempting to
register that number with the local system's RPC bindery (see the
RPCBPROC_SET or PMAPPROC_SET procedures in "Binding Protocols for ONC
RPC Version 2", [RFC1833]). If successful, no other RPC service was
using that number and the RPC Bindery has assigned that number to the
requesting RPC application. The registration is valid until the RPC
Bindery terminates, which normally would only happen if the system
reboots, causing all applications, including the RPC service using
the transient number, to terminate. If the transient number
registration fails, another RPC application is using the number 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 Assignment Method Authority
----------------- ----------------- ---------
Up to 100 numbers First Come First Served IANA
Up to 1000 numbers Specification Required IANA
More than 1000 numbers IESG Approval required IESG
Note: sub-blocks can be any size. The limits given above are
maximums, and smaller size sub-blocks are allowed.
Sub-blocks sized up to 100 numbers may be assigned by IANA on a First
Come First Served basis. The RPC Service Description included in the
range must include an indication of how the sub-block is managed. At
a minimum, the statement should indicate whether the sub-block is
Thurlow 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 May 2009
o The short identifier string(s)
o The auth number(s) assigned
o The short description of purpose and use
13.4.2. Auth Flavors vs. Pseudo-Flavors
Recent progress in RPC security has moved away from new auth flavors
as used by AUTH_DH [DH], and has focused on using the existing
RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203] flavor and inventing novel GSS-API (Generic
Security Services Application Programming Interface) mechanisms that
can be used with it. Even though RPCSEC_GSS is an assigned
authentication flavor, use of a new RPCSEC_GSS mechanism with the
Network File System (NFS) ([RFC1094] [RFC1813], and [RFC3530]) will
require the registration of 'pseudo-flavors' that are used to
negotiate security mechanisms in an unambiguous way, as defined by
[RFC2623]. Existing pseudo-flavors have been granted in the decimal
range 390000-390255. New pseudo-flavor requests will be granted by
IANA within this block on a First Come First Served basis.
For non-pseudo-flavor requests, IANA will begin granting RPC
authentication flavor numbers at 400000 on a First Come First Served
basis to avoid conflicts with currently granted numbers.
For authentication flavors or RPCSEC_GSS mechanisms to be used on the
Internet, it is strongly advised that an Informational or Standards
Track RFC be published describing the authentication mechanism
behaviour and parameters.
13.5. Authentication Status Number Assignment
The final number space is the authentication status or "auth_stat"
values that describe the nature of a problem found during an attempt
to authenticate or validate authentication. The complete initial
list of these values is found 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 May 2009
o The short identifier string(s)
o The auth_stat number(s) assigned
o The short description of purpose and use
14. 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 non-
trivial RPC programs developed in the future should implement
RPCSEC_GSS-based security appropriately. [RFC2623] describes how
this was done for a widely deployed RPC program.
Standards Track RPC services MUST mandate support for RPCSEC_GSS, and
MUST mandate support for an authentication pseudo-flavor with
appropriate levels of security, depending on the need for simple
authentication, integrity (a.k.a. non-repudiation), or data privacy.
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 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 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. Numbers are assigned on a
First Come First Served basis.
For all RPC authentication flavor and authentication status numbers
to be used on the Internet, it is strongly advised that an
Informational or Standards Track RFC be published describing the
authentication mechanism behaviour and parameters.
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 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 May 2009
pnp install 100041 pnp_prog
ip addr allocator 100042 ipaddr_alloc_prog
show filehandle 100043 filehandle
MVS NFS mount 100044 mvsnfsprog
remote user file operations 100045 rem_fileop_user_prog
batched ypupdate 100046 batch_ypupdateprog
network execution mgr 100047 nem_prog
raytrace/mandelbrot remote daemon 100048 raytrace_rd_prog
raytrace/mandelbrot local daemon 100049 raytrace_ld_prog
remote group file operations 100050 rem_fileop_group_prog
remote system file operations 100051 rem_fileop_system_prog
remote system role operations 100052 rem_system_role_prog
gpd lego fb simulator 100053 [unknown]
gpd simulator interface 100054 [unknown]
ioadmd 100055 ioadmd
filemerge 100056 filemerge_prog
Name Binding Program 100057 namebind_prog
sunlink NJE 100058 njeprog
MVSNFS get attribute service 100059 mvsattrprog
SunAccess/SunLink resource manager 100060 rmgrprog
UID allocation service 100061 uidallocprog
license broker 100062 lbserverprog
NETlicense client binder 100063 lbbinderprog
GID allocation service 100064 gidallocprog
SunIsam 100065 sunisamprog
Remote Debug Server 100066 rdbsrvprog
Network Directory Daemon 100067 [unknown]
Network Calendar Program 100068 cmsd cm
ypxfrd 100069 ypxfrd
rpc.timed 100070 timedprog
bugtraqd 100071 bugtraqd
100072 [unknown]
Connectathon Billboard - NFS 100073 [unknown]
Connectathon Billboard - X 100074 [unknown]
Sun tool for scheduling rooms 100075 schedroom
Authentication Negotiation 100076 authnegotiate_prog
Database manipulation 100077 attribute_prog
Kerberos authentication daemon 100078 kerbprog
Internal testing product (no name) 100079 [unknown]
Sun Consulting Special 100080 autodump_prog
Event protocol 100081 event_svc
bugtraq_qd 100082 bugtraq_qd
ToolTalk and Link Service Project 100083 database service
Consulting Services 100084 [unknown]
Consulting Services 100085 [unknown]
Consulting Services 100086 [unknown]
Jupiter Administration 100087 adm_agent admind
100088 [unknown]
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
100089 [unknown]
Dual Disk support 100090 libdsd/dsd
DocViewer 1.1 100091 [unknown]
ToolTalk 100092 remote_activation_svc
Consulting Services 100093 host_checking
SNA peer-to-peer 100094 [unknown]
Roger Riggs 100095 searchit
Robert Allen 100096 mesgtool
SNA 100097 [unknown]
SISU 100098 networked version of CS5
NFS Automount File System 100099 autofs
100100 msgboard
event dispatching agent [eventd] 100101 netmgt_eventd_prog
statistics/event logger [netlogd] 100102 netmgt_netlogd_prog
topology display manager [topology]100103 netmgt_topology_prog
syncstat agent [syncstatd] 100104 netmgt_syncstatd_prog
ip packet stats agent [ippktd] 100105 netmgt_ippktd_prog
netmgt config agent [configd] 100106 netmgt_configd_prog
restat agent [restatd] 100107 netmgt_restatd_prog
lpq agent [lprstatd] 100108 netmgt_lprstatd_prog
netmgt activity agent [mgtlogd] 100109 netmgt_mgtlogd_prog
proxy DECnet NCP agent [proxydni] 100110 netmgt_proxydni_prog
topology mapper agent [mapperd] 100111 netmgt_mapperd_prog
netstat agent [netstatd] 100112 netmgt_netstatd_prog
sample netmgt agent [sampled] 100113 netmgt_sampled_prog
X.25 statistics agent [vcstatd] 100114 netmgt_vcstatd_prog
Frame Relay 100128 [unknown]
PPP agent 100129 [unknown]
localhad 100130 rpc.localhad
layers2 100131 na.layers2
token ring agent 100132 na.tr
related to lockd and statd 100133 nsm_addr
Kerberos project 100134 kwarn
ertherif2 100135 na.etherif2
hostmem2 100136 na.hostmem2
iostat2 100137 na.iostat2
snmpv2 100138 na.snmpv2
Cooperative Console 100139 cc_sender
na.cpustat 100140 na.cpustat
Sun Cluster SC3.0 100141 rgmd_receptionist
100142 fed
Network Storage 100143 rdc
Sun Cluster products 100144 nafo
SunCluster 3.0 100145 scadmd
ASN.1 100146 amiserv
100147 amiaux # BER and DER
encode and decode
Delegate Management Server 100148 dm
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
100149 rkstat
100150 ocfserv
100151 sccheckd
100152 autoclientd
100153 sunvts
100154 ssmond
100155 smserverd
100156 test1
100157 test2
100158 test3
100159 test4
100160 test5
100161 test6
100162 test7
100163 test8
100164 test9
100165 test10
100166 nfsmapid
100167 SUN_WBEM_C_CIMON_HANDLE
100168 sacmmd
100169 fmd_adm
100170 fmd_api
100171 [unknown]
100172 idmapd
unassigned 100173 - 100174
snmptrap 100175 na.snmptrap
unassigned 100176-100199
unassigned 100200
MVS/NFS Memory usage stats server 100201 [unknown]
Netapp 100202-100207
unassigned 100208-100210
8.0 SunLink SNA RJE 100211 [unknown]
8.0 SunLink SNA RJE 100212 [unknown]
100213 ShowMe
100214 [unknown]
100215 [unknown]
AUTH_RSA Key service 100216 keyrsa
SunSelect PC license service 100217 [unknown]
WWCS (Corporate) 100218 sunsolve
100219 cstatd
X/Open Federated Naming 100220 xfn_server_prog
Kodak Color Management System 100221 kcs_network_io kcs
HA-DBMS 100222 ha_dbms_serv
100223-100225 [unknown]
100226 hafaultd
NFS ACL Service 100227 nfs_acl
distributed lock manager 100228 dlmd
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
100229 metad
100230 metamhd
100231 nfsauth
100232 sadmind
100233 ufsd
100234 grpservd
100235 cachefsd
100236 msmprog Media_Server
100237 ihnamed
100238 ihnetd
100239 ihsecured
100240 ihclassmgrd
100241 ihrepositoryd
100242 metamedd rpc.metamedd
100243 contentmanager cm
100244 symon
100245 pld genesil
100246 ctid
cluster_transport_interface
100247 ccd
cluster_configuration_db
100248 pmfd
100249 dmi2_client
100250 mfs_admin
100251 ndshared_unlink
100252 ndshared_touch
100253 ndshared_slink
100254 cbs control_board_server
100255 skiserv
100256 nfsxa nfsxattr
100257 ndshared_disable
100258 ndshared_enable
100259 sms_account_admin
100260 sms_modem_admin
100261 sms_r_login
100262 sms_r_subaccount_mgt
100263 sms_service_admin
100264 session_admin
100265 canci_ancs_program
100266 canci_sms_program
100267 msmp
100268 halck
100269 halogmsg
100270 nfs_id_map
100271 ncall
100272 hmip
100273 repl_mig
100274 repl_mig_cb
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
NIS+ 100300 nisplus
NIS+ 100301 nis_cachemgr
NIS+ call back protocol 100302 [unknown]
NIS+ Password Update Daemon 100303 nispasswdd
FNS context update in NIS 100304 fnsypd
100305 [unknown]
100306 [unknown]
100307 [unknown]
100308 [unknown]
100309 [unknown]
unassigned 100310 - 100398
nfscksum 100399 nfscksum
network utilization agent 100400 netmgt_netu_prog
network rpc ping agent 100401 netmgt_rping_prog
100402 na.shell
picsprint 100403 na.picslp
100404 traps
100405 - 100409 [unknown]
100410 jdsagent
100411 na.haconfig
100412 na.halhost
100413 na.hadtsrvc
100414 na.hamdstat
100415 na.neoadmin
100416 ex1048prog
rdmaconfig 100417 rpc.rdmaconfig
IETF NFSv4 Working Group - FedFS 100418 - 100421
100422 mdcommd
100423 kiprop krb5_iprop
100424 stsf
unassigned 100425 - 100499
Sun Microsystems 100500 - 100531 [unknown]
100532 ucmmstate
100533 scrcmd
unassigned 100534 - 100999
nse link daemon 101002 nselinktool
nse link application 101003 nselinkapp
unassigned 101004 - 101900
101901 [unknown]
unassigned 101902 - 101999
AssetLite 102000 [unknown]
PagerTool 102001 [unknown]
Discover 102002 [unknown]
unassigned 102003 - 105000
ShowMe 105001 sharedapp
Registry 105002 REGISTRY_PROG
Print-server 105003 print-server
Proto-server 105004 proto-server
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
Notification-server 105005 notification-server
Transfer-agent-server 105006 transfer-agent-server
unassigned 105007 - 110000
110001 tsolrpcb
110002 tsolpeerinfo
110003 tsolboot
120001 cmip na.cmip
120002 na.osidiscover
120003 cmiptrap
unassigned 120004 - 120099
120100 eserver
120101 repserver
120102 swserver
120103 dmd
120104 ca
unassigned 120105 - 120125
120126 nf_fddi
120127 nf_fddismt7_2
unassigned 120128 - 150000
pc passwd authorization 150001 pcnfsdprog
TOPS name mapping 150002 [unknown]
TOPS external attribute storage 150003 [unknown]
TOPS hierarchical file system 150004 [unknown]
TOPS NFS transparency extensions 150005 [unknown]
PC NFS License 150006 pcnfslicense
RDA 150007 rdaprog
WabiServer 150008 wsprog
WabiServer 150009 wsrlprog
unassigned 150010 - 160000
160001 nihon-cm
160002 nihon-ce
unassigned 160003 - 170099
170100 domf_daemon0
170101 domf_daemon1
170102 domf_daemon2
170103 domf_daemon3
170104 domf_daemon4
170105 domf_daemon5
unassigned 170106 - 179999
180000 cecprog
180001 cecsysprog
180002 cec2cecprog
180003 cesprog
180004 ces2cesprog
180005 cet2cetprog
180006 cet2cetdoneprog
180007 cetcomprog
180008 cetsysprog
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
180009 cghapresenceprog
180010 cgdmsyncprog
180011 cgdmcnscliprog
180012 cgdmcrcscliprog
180013 cgdmcrcssvcproG
180014 chmprog
180015 chmsysprog
180016 crcsapiprog
180017 ckptmprog
180018 crimcomponentprog
180019 crimqueryprog
180020 crimsecondaryprog
180021 crimservicesprog
180022 crimsyscomponentprog
180023 crimsysservicesprog
180024 csmagtapiprog
180025 csmagtcallbackprog
180026 csmreplicaprog
180027 csmsrvprog
180028 cssccltprog
180029 csscsvrprog
180030 csscopresultprog
unassigned 180031 - 199999
200000 pyramid_nfs
200001 pyramid_reserved
200002 cadds_image
200003 stellar_name_prog
200004 [unknown]
200005 [unknown]
200006 pacl
200007 lookupids
200008 ax_statd_prog
200009 ax_statd2_prog
200010 edm
200011 dtedirwd
200012 [unknown]
200013 [unknown]
200014 [unknown]
200015 [unknown]
200016 easerpcd
200017 rlxnfs
200018 sascuiddprog
200019 knfsd
200020 ftnfsd ftnfsd_program
200021 ftsyncd ftsyncd_program
200022 ftstatd ftstatd_program
200023 exportmap
200024 nfs_metadata
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
unassigned 200025 - 200200
200201 ecoad
200202 eamon
200203 ecolic
200204 cs_printstatus_svr
200205 ecodisc
unassigned 200206 - 300000
300001 adt_rflockprog
300002 columbine1
300003 system33_prog
300004 frame_prog1
300005 uimxprog
300006 rvd
300007 entombing daemon
300008 account mgmt system
300009 frame_prog2
300010 beeper access
300011 dptuprog
300012 mx-bcp
300013 instrument-file-access
300014 file-system-statistics
300015 unify-database-server
300016 tmd_msg
300017 [unknown]
300018 [unknown]
300019 automounter access
300020 lock server
300021 [unknown]
300022 office-automation-1
300023 office-automation-2
300024 office-automation-3
300025 office-automation-4
300026 office-automation-5
300027 office-automation-6
300028 office-automation-7
300029 local-data-manager
300030 chide
300031 csi_program
300032 [unknown]
300033 online-help
300034 case-tool
300035 delta
300036 rgi
300037 instrument-config-server
300038 [unknown]
300039 [unknown]
300040 dtia-rpc-server
300041 cms
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300042 viewer
300043 aqm
300044 exclaim
300045 masterplan
300046 fig_tool
300047 [unknown]
300048 [unknown]
300049 [unknown]
300050 remote-lock-manager
300051 [unknown]
300052 gdebug
300053 ldebug
300054 rscanner
300055 [unknown]
300056 [unknown]
300057 [unknown]
300058 [unknown]
300059 [unknown]
300060 [unknown]
300061 [unknown]
300062 [unknown]
300063 [unknown]
300064 [unknown]
300065 [unknown]
300066 nSERVER
300067 [unknown]
300068 [unknown]
300069 [unknown]
300070 [unknown]
300071 BioStation
300072 [unknown]
300073 NetProb
300074 Logging
300075 Logging
300076 [unknown]
300077 [unknown]
300078 [unknown]
300079 [unknown]
300080 [unknown]
300081 [unknown]
300082 sw_twin
300083 remote_get_login
300084 odcprog
300085 [unknown]
300086 [unknown]
300087 [unknown]
300088 [unknown]
300089 [unknown]
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300090 [unknown]
300091 smartdoc
300092 superping
300093 distributed-chembench
300094 uacman/alfil-uacman
300095 ait_rcagent_prog
300096 ait_rcagent_appl_prog
300097 smart
300098 ecoprog
300099 leonardo
300100 [unknown]
300101 [unknown]
300102 [unknown]
300103 [unknown]
300104 [unknown]
300105 [unknown]
300106 [unknown]
300107 [unknown]
300108 wingz
300109 teidan
300110 [unknown]
300111 [unknown]
300112 [unknown]
300113 [unknown]
300114 [unknown]
300115 [unknown]
300116 cadc_fhlockprog
300117 highscan
300118 [unknown]
300119 [unknown]
300120 [unknown]
300121 opennavigator
300122 aarpcxfer
300123 [unknown]
300124 [unknown]
300125 [unknown]
300126 groggs
300127 licsrv
300128 issdemon
300129 [unknown]
300130 maximize
300131 cgm_server
300132 [unknown]
300133 agent_rpc
300134 docmaker
300135 docmaker
300136 [unknown]
300137 [unknown]
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300138 [unknown]
300139 iesx
300140 [unknown]
300141 [unknown]
300142 [unknown]
300143 [unknown]
300144 smart-mbs
300145 [unknown]
300146 [unknown]
300147 docimage
300148 [unknown]
300149 dmc-interface
300150 [unknown]
300151 jss
300152 [unknown]
300153 arimage
300154 xdb-workbench
300155 frontdesk
300156 dmc
300157 expressight-6000
300158 graph service program
300159 [unknown]
300160 [unknown]
300161 [unknown]
300162 [unknown]
300163 [unknown]
300164 [unknown]
300165 [unknown]
300166 [unknown]
300167 [unknown]
300168 [unknown]
300169 [unknown]
300170 [unknown]
300171 [unknown]
300172 [unknown]
300173 [unknown]
300174 [unknown]
300175 [unknown]
300176 rlpr
300177 nx_hostdprog
300178 netuser-x
300179 rmntprog
300180 [unknown]
300181 mipe
300182 [unknown]
300183 collectorprog
300184 uslookup_PROG
300185 viewstation
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300186 iate
300187 [unknown]
300188 [unknown]
300189 [unknown]
300190 imsvtprog
300191 [unknown]
300192 [unknown]
300193 [unknown]
300194 pmdb
300195 pmda
300196 [unknown]
300197 [unknown]
300198 trend_idbd
300199 rres
300200 sd.masterd
300201 sd.executiond
300202 sd.listend
300203 sd.reserve1
300204 sd.reserve2
300205 msbd
300206 stagedprog
300207 mountprog
300208 watchdprog
300209 pms
300210 [unknown]
300211 session_server_program
300212 session_program
300213 debug_serverprog
300214 [unknown]
300215 [unknown]
300216 paceprog
300217 [unknown]
300218 mbus
300219 aframes2ps
300220 npartprog
300221 cm1server
300222 cm1bridge
300223 sailfrogfaxprog
300224 sailfrogphoneprog
300225 sailfrogvmailprog
300226 wserviceprog arcstorm
300227 hld
300228 alive
300229 radsp
300230 radavx
300231 radview
300232 rsys_prog
300233 rsys_prog
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300234 fm_rpc_prog
300235 aries
300236 uapman
300237 ddman
300238 top
300239 [unknown]
300240 trendlink
300241 licenseprog
300242 statuslicenseprog
300243 oema_rmpf_svc
300244 oema_smpf_svc
300245 oema_rmsg_svc
300246 grapes-sd
300247 ds_master
300248 ds_transfer
300249 ds_logger
300250 ds_query
300251 [unknown]
300252 [unknown]
300253 nsd_prog
300254 browser
300255 epoch
300256 floorplanner
300257 reach
300258 tactic
300259 cachescientific1
300260 cachescientific2
300261 desksrc_prog
300262 photo3d1
300263 photo3d2
300264 [unknown]
300265 soundmgr
300266 s6k
300267 aims_referenced_
text_processor
300268 xess
300269 ds_queue
300270 [unknown]
300271 orionscanplus
300272 openlink-xx
300273 kbmsprog
300274 [unknown]
300275 futuresource
300276 the_xprt
300277 cmg_srvprog
300278 [unknown]
300279 [unknown]
300280 front
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300281 [unknown]
300282 [unknown]
300283 [unknown]
300284 conmanprog
300285 jincv2
300286 isls
300287 systemstatprog
300288 fxpsprog
300289 callpath
300290 axess
300291 armor_rpcd
300292 armor_dictionary_rpcd
300293 armor_miscd
300294 filetransfer_prog
300295 bl_swda
300296 bl_hwda
300297 [unknown]
300298 [unknown]
300299 [unknown]
300300 filemon
300301 acunetprog
300302 rbuild
300303 assistprog
300304 tog
300305 [unknown]
300306 sns7000
300307 igprog
300308 tgprog
300309 plc
300310 pxman pxlsprog
300311 hde_server hdeserver
300312 tsslicenseprog
300313 rpc.explorerd
300314 chrd
300315 tbisam
300316 tbis
300317 adsprog
300318 sponsorprog
300319 querycmprog
300320 [unknown]
300321 [unknown]
300322 mobil1
300323 sld
service_locator_daemon
300324 linkprog
300325 codexdaemonprog
300326 drprog
300327 ressys_commands
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300328 stamp
300329 matlab
300330 sched1d
300331 upcprog
300332 xferbkch
300333 xfer
300334 qbthd
300335 qbabort
300336 lsd
300337 geomgrd
300338 generic_fts
300339 ft_ack
300340 lymb
300341 vantage
300342 cltstd clooptstdprog
300343 clui clui_prog
300344 testerd tstdprog
300345 extsim
300346 cmd_dispatch maxm_ems
300347 callpath_receive_program
300348 x3270prog
300349 sbc_lag
300350 sbc_frsa
300351 sbc_frs
300352 atommgr
300353 geostrat
300354 dbvialu6.2
300355 [unknown]
300356 fxncprog
300357 infopolic
300358 [unknown]
300359 aagns
300360 aagms
300361 [unknown]
300362 clariion_mgr
300363 setcimrpc
300364 virtual_protocol_adapter
300365 unibart
300366 uniarch
300367 unifile
300368 unisrex
300369 uniscmd
300370 rsc
300371 set
300372 desaf-ws/key
300373 reeldb
300374 nl
300375 rmd
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300376 agcd
300377 rsynd
300378 rcnlib
300379 rcnlib_attach
300380 evergreen_mgmt_agent
300381 fx104prog
300382 rui
remote_user_interface
300383 ovomd
300384 [unknown]
300385 [unknown]
300386 system_server
300387 pipecs cs_pipeprog
ppktrpc
300388 uv-net univision
300389 auexe
300390 audip
300391 mqi
300392 eva
300393 eeei_reserved_1
300394 eeei_reserved_2
300395 eeei_reserved_3
300396 eeei_reserved_4
300397 eeei_reserved_5
300398 eeei_reserved_6
300399 eeei_reserved_7
300400 eeei_reserved_8
300401 cprlm
300402 wg_idms_manager
300403 timequota
300404 spiff
300405-300414 ov_oem_svc
300415 ov_msg_ctlg_svc
300416 ov_advt_reg_svc
300417-300424 showkron
300425 daatd
300426 swiftnet
300427 ovomdel
300428 ovomreq
300429 msg_dispatcher
300430 pcshare server
300431 rcvs
300432 fdfserver
300433 bssd
300434 drdd
300435 mif_gutsprog
300436 mif_guiprog
300437 twolfd
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300438 twscd
300439 nwsbumv
300440 dgux_mgr
300441 pfxd
300442 tds
300443 ovomadmind
300444 ovomgate
300445 omadmind
300446 nps
300447 npd
300448 tsa
300449 cdaimc
unassigned 300450-300452
300453 ckt_implementation
300454 mda-tactical
unassigned 300455-300458
300459 atrrun
300460 RoadRunner
300461 nas
300462 undelete
300463 ovacadd
300464 tbdesmai
300465 arguslm
300466 dmd
300467 drd
300468 fm_help
300469 ftransrpc_prog
300470 finrisk
300471 dg_pc_idisched
300472 dg_pc_idiserv
300473 apd
300474 ap_sspd
300475 callpatheventrecorder
300476 flc
300477 dg_osm
300478 dspnamed
300479 iqddsrv
300480 iqjobsrv
300481 tacosxx
300482 wheeldbmg
300483 cnxmgr_nm_prog
300484 cnxmgr_cfg_prog
300485 3dsmapper
300486 ids
300487 imagine_rpc_svc
300488 lfn
300489 salesnet
300490 defaxo
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300491 dbqtsd
300492 kms
300493 rpc.iced
300494 calc2s
300495 ptouidprog
300496 docsls
300497 new
300498 collagebdg
300499 ars_server
300500 ars_client
300501 vr_catalog
300502 vr_tdb
300503 ama
300504 evama
300505 conama
300506 service_process
300507 reuse_proxy
300508 mars_ctrl
300509 mars_db
300510 mars_com
300511 mars_admch
300512 tbpipcip
300513 top_acs_svc
300514 inout_svc
300515 csoft_wp
300516 mcfs
300517 eventprog
300518 dg_pc_idimsg
300519 dg_pc_idiaux
300520 atsr_gc
300521 alarm alarm_prog
300522 fts_prog
300523 dcs_prog
300524 ihb_prog
300525 [unknown]
300526 [unknown]
300527 clu_info_prog
300528 rmfm
300529 c2sdocd
300530 interahelp
300531 callpathasyncmsghandler
300532 optix_arc
300533 optix_ts
300534 optix_wf
300535 maxopenc
300536 cev cev_server
300537 sitewideprog
300538 drs
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300539 drsdm
300540 dasgate
300541 dcdbd
300542 dcpsd
300543 supportlink_prog
300544 broker
300545 listner
300546 multiaccess
300547 spai_interface
300548 spai_adaption
300549 chimera_ci
chimera_clientinterface
300550 chimera_pi
chimera_processinvoker
300551 teamware_fl
teamware_foundationlevel
300552 teamware_sl
teamware_systemlevel
300553 teamware_ui
teamware_userinterface
300554 lprm
300555 mpsprog
Mensuration_Proxy_Server
300556 mo_symdis
300557 retsideprog
300558 slp
300559 slm-api
300560 im_rpc teamconference
300561 license_prog license
300562 stuple stuple_prog
300563 upasswd_prog
300564 gentranmentorsecurity
300565 gentranmentorprovider
300566 latituded
latitude_license_server
300567 gentranmentorreq1
300568 gentranmentorreq2
300569 gentranmentorreq3
300570 rj_server
300571 gws-rdb
300572 gws-mpmd
300573 gws-spmd
300574 vwcalcd
300575 vworad
300576 vwsybd
300577 vwave
300578 online_assistant
300579 internet_assistant
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300580 spawnd
300581 procmgrg
300582 cfgdbd
300583 logutild
300584 ibis
300585 ibisaux
300586 aapi
300587 rstrt
300588 hbeat
300589 pcspu
300590 empress
300591 sched_server
LiveScheduler
300592 path_server
LiveScheduler
300593 c2sdmd
300594 c2scf
300595 btsas
300596 sdtas
300597 appie
300598 dmi
300599 pscd
panther software corp daemon
300600 sisd
300601 cpwebserver
300602 wwcommo
300603 mx-mie
300604 mx-mie-debug
300605 idmn
300606 ssrv
300607 vpnserver
300608 samserver
300609 sams_server
300610 chrysalis
300611 ddm
300612 ddm-is
300613 mx-bcp-debug
300614 upmrd
300615 upmdsd
300616 res
300617 colortron
300618 zrs
300619 afpsrv
300620 apxft
300621 nrp
300622 hpid
300623 mailwatch
300624 fos bc_fcrb_receiver
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300625 cs_sysadmin_svr
300626 cs_controller_svr
300627 nokia_nms_eai
300628 dbg
300629 remex
300630 cs_bind
300631 idm
300632 prpasswd
300633 iw-pw
300634 starrb
300635 Impress_Server
300636 colorstar
300637 gwugui
300638 gwsgui
300639 dai_command_proxy
300640 dai_alarm_server
300641 dai_fui_proxy
300642 spai_command_proxy
300643 spai_alarm_server
300644 iris
300645 hcxttp
300646 updatedb rsched
300647 urnd urn
300648 iqwpsrv
300649 dskutild
300650 online
300651 nlserv
300652 acsm
300653 dg_clar_sormsg
300654 wwpollerrpc
300655 wwmodelrpc
300656 nsprofd
300657 nsdistd
300658 recollect
300659 lssexecd lss_res
300660 lssagend lss_rea
300661 cdinfo
300662 sninsr_addon
300663 mm-sap
300664 ks
300665 psched
300666 tekdvfs
300667 storxll
300668 nisse
300669 lbadvise
300670 atcinstaller
300671 atntstarter
300672 NetML
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300673 tdmesmge
300674 tdmesmgd
300675 tdmesmgt
300676 olm
300677 mediamanagement
300678 rdbprog fieldowsrv
300679 rpwdprog rpwd
300680 sapi-trace
300681 sapi-master-daemon
300682 omdcuprog om-dcu
300683 wwprocmon
300684 tndidprog
300685 rkey_setsecretprog
300686 asdu_server_prog
300687 pwrcntrl
300688 siunixd
300689 wmapi
300690 cross_reference_ole
300691 rtc
300692 disp
300693 sql_compilation_agent
300694 tnsysprog
300695 ius-sapimd
300696 apteam-dx
300697 rmsrpc
300698 seismic_system
300699 remote
300700 tt1_ts_event nokia_nms
300701 fxrs
300702 onlicense
300703 vxkey
300704 dinis
300705 sched2d schedule-2
300706 sched3d schedule-3
300707 sched4d schedule-4
300708 sched5d schedule-5
300709 sched6d schedule-6
300710 sched7d schedule-7
300711 sched8d schedule-8
300712 sched9d schedule-9
300713 adtsqry
300714 adserv
300715 adrepserv
300716 [unknown]
300717 caad
300718 caaui
300719 cescda
300720 vcapiadmin
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300721 vcapi20
300722 tcfs
300723 csed
300724 nothand
300725 hacb
300726 nfauth
300727 imlm
300728 bestcomm
300729 lprpasswd
300730 rprpasswd
300731 proplistd
300732 mikomomc
300733 arepa-cas
300734 [unknown]
300735 [unknown]
300736 ando_ts
300737 intermezzo
300738 ftel-sdh-request
300739 ftel-sdh-response
300740 [unknown]
300741 [unknown]
300742 [unknown]
300743 [unknown]
300744 [unknown]
300745 vrc_abb
300746 vrc_comau
300747 vrc_fanuc
300748 vrc_kuka
300749 vrc_reis
300750 hp_sv6d
300751 correntmgr01
300752 correntike
300753 [unknown]
300754 [unknown]
300755 intransa_location
300756 intransa_management
300757 intransa_federation
300758 portprot
300759 ipmiprot
300760 aceapi
300761 f6000pss
300762 vsmapi_program
300763 ubertuple
300764 ctconcrpcif
300765 mfuadmin
300766 aiols
300767 dsmrootd
300768 htdl
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
300769 caba
300770 vrc_cosimir
300771 cmhelmd
300772 polynsm
300773 [unknown]
300774 [unknown]
300775 [unknown]
300776 [unknown]
300777 [unknown]
300778 [unknown]
300779 [unknown]
300780 [unknown]
300781 dsmrecalld
300782 [unknown]
300783 [unknown]
300784 twrgcontrol
300785 twrled
300786 twrcfgdb
BMC software 300787-300886
unassigned 300887 - 300999
Sun Microsystems 301000-302000 [ 2000 numbers ]
unassigned 302001-349999
American Airlines 350000 - 350999
Acucobol Inc. 351000 - 351099
The Bristol Group 351100 - 351249
Amteva Technologies 351250 - 351349
351350 wfmMgmtApp
351351 wfmMgmtDataSrv
351352 wfmMgmtFut1
351353 wfmMgmtFut1
351354 wfmAPM
351355 wfmIAMgr
351356 wfmECMgr
351357 wfmLookOut
351358 wfmAgentFut1
351359 wfmAgentFut2
unassigned 351360 - 351406
Sterling Software ITD 351407 csed
351360 sched10d
351361 sched11d
351362 sched12d
351363 sched13d
351364 sched14d
351365 sched15d
351366 sched16d
351367 sched17d
351368 sched18d
351369 sched19d
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
351370 sched20d
351371 sched21d
351372 sched22d
351373 sched23d
351374 sched24d
351375 sched25d
351376 sched26d
351377 sched27d
351378 sched28d
351379 sched29d
351380 sched30d
351381 sched31d
351382 sched32d
351383 sched33d
351384 sched34d
351385 sched35d
351386 sched36d
351387 sched37d
351388 sched38d
351389 sched39d
351390 consoleserver
351391 scheduleserver
351392 RDELIVER
351393 REVENTPROG
351394 RSENDEVENTPROG
351395 snapp
351396 snapad
351397 sdsoodb
351398 sdsmain
351399 sdssrv
351400 sdsclnt
351401 sdsreg
351402 fsbatch
351403 fsmonitor
351404 fsdisp
351405 fssession
351406 fslog
351407 svdpappserv
351408 gns
351409 [unkonwn]
351410 [unkonwn]
351411 [unkonwn]
351412 axi
351413 rpcxfr
351414 slm
351415 smbpasswdd
351416 tbdbserv
351417 tbprojserv
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
351418 genericserver
351419 dynarc_ds
351420 dnscmdr
351421 ipcmdr
351422 faild
351423 failmon
351424 faildebug
351425 [unknown]
351426 [unknown]
351427 siemens_srs
351428 bsproxy
351429 ifsrpc
351430 CesPvcSm
351431 FrPvcSm
351432 AtmPvcSm
351433 radius
351434 auditor
351435 sft
351436 voicemail
351437 kis
351438 SOFTSERV_NOTIFY
351439 dynarpc
351440 hc
351441 iopas
351442 iopcs
351443 iopss
351444 spcnfs
351445 spcvss
351446 matilda_sms
351447 matilda_brs
351448 matilda_dbs
351449 matilda_sps
351450 matilda_svs
351451 matilda_sds
351452 matilda_vvs
351453 matilda_stats
351454 xtrade
351455 mapsvr
351456 hp_graphicsd
351457 berkeley_db
berkeley_db_svc
351458 io_server
351459 rpc.niod
351460 rpc.kill
351461 hmdisproxy
351462 smdisproxy
351463 avatard
351464 namu
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
351465 BMCSess
351466 FENS_Sport
351467 EM_CONFIG
351468 EM_CONFIG_RESP
351469 lodge_proof
351470 ARCserveIT-Queue
351471 ARCserveIT-Device
351472 ARCserveIT-Discover
351473 ARCserveIT-Alert
351474 ARCserveIT-Database
351475 scand1
351476 scand2
351477 scand3
351478 scand4
351479 scand5
351480 dscv
351481 cb_svc
351482 [unknown]
351483 iprobe
351484 omniconf
351485 isan
BG Partners 351486 - 351500
351501 mond
351502 iqlremote
351503 iqlalarm
unassigned 351504 - 351599
Orion Multisystems 351600-351855
unassigned 351856 - 351899
NSP lab 351900 - 351999
unassigned 351999 - 352232
352233 asautostart
352234 asmediad1
352235 asmediad2
352236 asmediad3
352237 asmediad4
352238 asmediad5
352239 asmediad6
352240 asmediad7
352241 asmediad8
352242 asmediad9
352243 asmediad10
352244 asmediad11
352245 asmediad12
352246 asmediad13
352247 asmediad14
352248 asmediad15
352249 asmediad16
352250 waruser
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
352251 warlogd
352252 warsvrmgr
352253 warvfsysd
352254 warftpd
352255 warnfsd
352256 bofproxyc0
352257 bofproxys0
352258 bofproxyc1
352259 bofproxys1
352260 bofproxyc2
352261 bofproxys2
352262 bofproxyc3
352263 bofproxys3
352264 bofproxyc4
352265 bofproxys4
352266 bofproxyc5
352267 bofproxys5
352268 bofproxyc6
352269 bofproxys6
352270 bofproxyc7
352271 bofproxys7
352272 bofproxyc8
352273 bofproxys8
352274 bofproxyc9
352275 bofproxys9
352276 bofproxyca
352277 bofproxysa
352278 bofproxycb
352279 bofproxysb
352280 bofproxycc
352281 bofproxysc
352282 bofproxycd
352283 bofproxysd
352284 bofproxyce
352285 bofproxyse
352286 bofproxycf
352287 bofproxysf
352288 bofproxypo0
352289 bofproxypo1
352290 bofproxypo2
352291 bofproxypo3
352292 bofproxypo4
unassigned 352293-370000
370001 [unknown]
370002 [unknown]
370003 [unknown]
370004 [unknown]
370005 [unknown]
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
370006 [unknown]
370007 [unknown]
370008 [unknown]
370009 [unknown]
370010 [unknown]
370011 [unknown]
370012 [unknown]
370013 [unknown]
370014 [unknown]
370015 [unknown]
370016 [unknown]
370017 [unknown]
370018 [unknown]
370019 [unknown]
370020 [unknown]
370021 [unknown]
370022 [unknown]
370023 [unknown]
370024 [unknown]
370025 [unknown]
370026 [unknown]
370027 [unknown]
unassigned 370028 - 379999
380000 opensna
380001 probenet
380002 [unknown]
380003 license
380004 na.3com-remote
380005 na.ntp
380006 probeutil
380007 na.vlb
380008 cds_mhs_agent
380009 cds_x500_agent
380010 cds_mailhub_agent
380011 codex_6500_proxy
380012 codex_6500_trapd
380013 na.nm212
380014 cds_mta_metrics_agent
380015 [unkonwn]
380016 na.caple
380017 codexcapletrap
Swiss Re 380018-380028
380029 ncstat
380030 ncnfsstat
380031 ftams
380032 na.isotp
380033 na.rfc1006
unassigned 380034 - 389999
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
Epoch Systems 390000 - 390049
Quickturn Systems 390050 - 390065
Team One Systems 390066 - 390075
General Electric CRD 390076 - 390085
TSIG NFS subcommittee 390086 - 390089
SoftLab ab 390090 - 390099
Legato Network Services 390100 - 390115
390116 cdsmonitor
390117 cdslock
390118 cdslicense
390119 shm
390120 rws
390121 cdc
Data General 390122 - 390141
Perfect Byte 390142 - 390171
JTS Computer Systems 390172 - 390181
Parametric Technology 390182 - 390191
Voxem 390192 - 390199
Effix Systems 390200 - 390299
Motorola 390300 - 390309
Mobile Data Intl. 390310 - 390325
Physikalisches Institut 390326 - 390330
Ergon Informatik AG 390331 - 390340
Analog Devices Inc. 390341 - 390348
Interphase Corporation 390349 - 390358
NeWsware 390359 - 390374
Qualix Group 390375 - 390379
Xerox Imaging Systems 390380 - 390389
Noble Net 390390 - 390399
Legato Network Services 390400 - 390499
Client Server Tech. 390500 - 390511
Atria 390512 - 390517
GE NMR Instruments 390518 - 390525
Harris Corp. 390526 - 390530
Unisys 390531 - 390562
Aggregate Computing 390563 - 390572
Interactive Data 390573 - 390580
OKG AB 390581 - 390589
K2 Software 390591 - 390594
Collier Jackson 390595 - 390599
Remedy Corporation 390600 - 390699
Mentor Graphics 390700 - 390799
AT&T Bell Labs (Lucent) 390800 - 390899
Xerox 390900 - 390999
Silicon Graphics 391000 - 391063
Data General 391064 - 391095
Computer Support Corp. 391096 - 391099
Quorum Software Systems 391100 - 391199
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
InterLinear Technology 391200 - 391209
Highland Software 391210 - 391229
Boeing Comp. Svcs. 391230 - 391249
IBM Sweden 391250 - 391259
Signature Authority Svc 391260 - 391271
ZUMTOBEL Licht GmbH 391272 - 391283
NOAA/ERL 391284 - 391299
NCR Corp. 391300 - 391399
FTP Software 391400 - 391409
Cadre Technologies 391410 - 391433
Visionware Ltd (UK) 391434 - 391439
IBR-Partner AG 391440 - 391449
CAP Programator AB 391450 - 391459
Reichle+De-Massari AG 391460 - 391474
Swiss Bank Corp (London) 391475 - 391484
Unisys Enterprise Svr 391485 - 391489
Intel - Test Dev. Tech. 391490 - 391499
Ampex 391500 - 391755
391756 naas-spare
391757 naas-admin
391758 isps
391759 isps-admin
391760 mars
391761 mars-admin
391762 attcis_spare0
391763 attcis_spare1
391764 mail-server
391765 mail-server-spare
391766 attcis_spare2
391767 attcis_spare3
391768 attcis_spare4
391769 attcis_spare5
391770 attcis_spare6
391771 attcis_spare7
Integrated Systems, Inc. 391772 - 391779
Parametric Tech., Inc. 391780 - 391789
Ericsson Telecom AB 391790 - 391799
SLAC 391800 - 391849
391850 qhrdata
391851 qhrbackup
391852 minutedata
391853 prefecture
391854 supc
391855 suadmincrw
391856 suadminotas
391857 sumessage
391858 sublock
391859 sumotd
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
staffware dev. (uk) 391860 - 391869
Staffware Dev. (UK) 391870 - 391879
391880 namesrvr
391881 disksrvr
391882 tapesrvr
391883 migsrvr
391884 pdmsrvr
391885 pvrsrvr
391886 repacksrvr
391887 [unknown]
Convex Computer Corp. 391888 - 391951
391952 lookoutsrv
391953 lookoutagnt
391954 lookoutprxy
391955 lookoutsnmp
391956 lookoutrmon
391957 lookoutfut1
391958 lookoutfut2
windward 391959 - 391967
391968 sra_legato
391969 sra_legato_imgsvr
391970 sra_legato_0
391971 sra_legato_1
391972 sra_legato_2
391973 sra_legato_3
391974 sra_legato_4
391975 sra_legato_5
391976 sra_legato_6
391977 sra_legato_7
391978 sra_legato_8
391979 sra_legato_9
Brooktree Corp. 391980 - 391989
Cadence Design Systems 391990 - 391999
J. Frank & Associates 392000 - 392999
Cooperative Solutions 393000 - 393999
Xerox Corp. 394000 - 395023
395024 odbc_sqlretriever
3M 395025 - 395091
Digital Zone Intl. 395092 - 395099
Software Professionals 395100 - 395159
Del Mar Solutions 395160 - 395164
395165 ife-es
395166 ife-resmgr
395167 ife-aes
395168 ife-bite
395169 ife-loader
395170 ife-satcom
395171 ife-seat
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
395172 ife-dbmgr
395173 ife-testmgr
395174 atrium_server
395175 ase_director
395176 ase_agent
395177 ase_hsm
395178 ase_mgr
395179 ase_sim
Hewlett-Packard 395180 - 395194
XES, Inc. 395195 - 395199
Unitech Products 395200 - 395249
TransSys 395250 - 395505
Unisys Govt Systems 395506 - 395519
Bellcore 395520 - 395529
IBM 395530 - 395561
AT&T Network Services 395562 - 395571
Data General 395572 - 395577
Swiss Bank Corp 395578 - 395597
Swiss Bank Corp 395598 - 395637
Novell 395638 - 395643
Computer Associates 395644 - 395650
Omneon Video Networks 395651 - 395656
unassigned 395657 - 395908
UK Post Office 395909 - 395924
AEROSPATIALE 395925 - 395944
Result d.o.o. 395945 - 395964
DataTools, Inc. 395965 - 395980
CADIS, Inc. 395981 - 395990
Cummings Group, Inc. 395991 - 395994
Cadre Technologies 395995 - 395999
American Airlines 396000 - 396999
Ericsson Telecom TM Div 397000 - 398023
IBM 398024 - 398028
Toshiba OME Works 398029 - 398033
TUSC Computer Systems 398034 - 398289
AT&T 398290 - 398320
Ontario Hydro 398321 - 398346
Micrion Corporation 398347 - 398364
unassigned 398365 - 398591
Pegasystems, Inc. 398592 - 399616
Spectra Securities Soft 399617 - 399850
QualCom 399851 - 399866
unassigned 399867 - 399884
Altris Software Ltd. 399885 - 399899
ISO/IEC WG11 399900 - 399919
Parametric Technology 399920 - 399949
Dolby Laboratories 399950 - 399981
unassigned 399982 - 399991
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2009
Xerox PARC 399992 - 399999
#
Next Inc. 200100000 - 200199999
Netwise (RPCtool) 200200000
Concurrent Computer Corp 200200001 - 200200007
AIM Technology 200300000 - 200399999
TGV 200400000 - 200499999
#
# Sun-assigned authentication flavor numbers
#
AUTH_NONE 0 /* no authentication, 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 30001 NETWARE
AUTH_SEC 200000 TSIG NFS subcommittee
AUTH_ESV 200004 SVr4 ES
AUTH_NQNFS 300000 Univ. of Guelph - Not Quite NFS
AUTH_GSSAPI 300001 OpenVision
AUTH_ILU_UGEN 300002 Xerox
- ILU Unsecured Generic Identity
#
# Small blocks are assigned out of the 39xxxx series of numbers
#
AUTH_SPNEGO 390000
390000 - 390255 NFS 'pseudo' flavors for RPCSEC_GSS
390003 - kerberos_v5 authentication, RFC 2623
390004 - kerberos_v5 with data integrity, RFC 2623
390005 - kerberos_v5 with data privacy, RFC 2623
200000000 Reserved
200100000 NeXT Inc.
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 5531 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 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: robert.thurlow@sun.com
Thurlow Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC, FYI, BCP