throbber
RFC 768
`
`Introduction
`------------
`
`J. Postel
`ISI
`28 August 1980
`
`User Datagram Protocol
`----------------------
`
`This User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is defined to make available a
`datagram mode of packet-switched computer communication in the
`environment of an interconnected set of computer networks. This
`protocol assumes that the Internet Protocol (IP) [1] is used as the
`underlying protocol.
`
`This protocol provides a procedure for application programs to send
`messages to other programs with a minimum of protocol mechanism. The
`protocol is transaction oriented, and delivery and duplicate protection
`are not guaranteed. Applications requiring ordered reliable delivery of
`streams of data should use the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [2].
`
`0 7 8 15 16 23 24 31
`+--------+--------+--------+--------+
`| Source | Destination |
`| Port | Port
`|
`+--------+--------+--------+--------+
`|
`|
`|
`| Length | Checksum
`|
`+--------+--------+--------+--------+
`
`| |
`
` data octets ...
`+---------------- ...
`
`User Datagram Header Format
`
`Format
`------
`
`Fields
`------
`
`Source Port is an optional field, when meaningful, it indicates the port
`of the sending process, and may be assumed to be the port to which a
`reply should be addressed in the absence of any other information. If
`not used, a value of zero is inserted.
`
`Postel
`
`[page 1]
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2064
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`
` 28 Aug 1980
`User Datagram Protocol RFC 768
`Fields
`
`Destination Port has a meaning within the context of a particular
`internet destination address.
`
`Length is the length in octets of this user datagram including this
`header and the data. (This means the minimum value of the length is
`eight.)
`
`Checksum is the 16-bit one’s complement of the one’s complement sum of a
`pseudo header of information from the IP header, the UDP header, and the
`data, padded with zero octets at the end (if necessary) to make a
`multiple of two octets.
`
`The pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the UDP header contains the
`source address, the destination address, the protocol, and the UDP
`length. This information gives protection against misrouted datagrams.
`This checksum procedure is the same as is used in TCP.
`
` 0 7 8 15 16 23 24 31
` +--------+--------+--------+--------+
` | source address |
` +--------+--------+--------+--------+
` | destination address |
` +--------+--------+--------+--------+
` | zero |protocol| UDP length |
` +--------+--------+--------+--------+
`
`If the computed checksum is zero, it is transmitted as all ones (the
`equivalent in one’s complement arithmetic). An all zero transmitted
`checksum value means that the transmitter generated no checksum (for
`debugging or for higher level protocols that don’t care).
`
`User Interface
`--------------
`
`A user interface should allow
`
` the creation of new receive ports,
`
` receive operations on the receive ports that return the data octets
` and an indication of source port and source address,
`
` and an operation that allows a datagram to be sent, specifying the
` data, source and destination ports and addresses to be sent.
`
`[page 2] Postel
`
`28 Aug 1980
`RFC 768 User Datagram Protocol
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2064
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

` IP Interface
`
`IP Interface
`-------------
`
`The UDP module must be able to determine the source and destination
`internet addresses and the protocol field from the internet header. One
`possible UDP/IP interface would return the whole internet datagram
`including all of the internet header in response to a receive operation.
`Such an interface would also allow the UDP to pass a full internet
`datagram complete with header to the IP to send. The IP would verify
`certain fields for consistency and compute the internet header checksum.
`
`Protocol Application
`--------------------
`
`The major uses of this protocol is the Internet Name Server [3], and the
`Trivial File Transfer [4].
`
`Protocol Number
`---------------
`
`This is protocol 17 (21 octal) when used in the Internet Protocol.
`Other protocol numbers are listed in [5].
`
`References
`----------
`
`[1] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol," RFC 760, USC/Information
` Sciences Institute, January 1980.
`
`[2] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol," RFC 761,
` USC/Information Sciences Institute, January 1980.
`
`[3] Postel, J., "Internet Name Server," USC/Information Sciences
` Institute, IEN 116, August 1979.
`
`[4] Sollins, K., "The TFTP Protocol," Massachusetts Institute of
` Technology, IEN 133, January 1980.
`
`[5] Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers," USC/Information Sciences
` Institute, RFC 762, January 1980.
`
`Postel [page 3]
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2064
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 3 of 3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket