Network Working Group D. Mitzel
Request for Comments: 3002 Nokia
Category: Informational December 2000
Network Working Group D. Mitzel
Request for Comments: 3002 Nokia
Category: Informational December 2000
Overview of 2000 IAB Wireless Internetworking Workshop
2000年IAB无线互联车间概述
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) on wireless internetworking. The workshop was hosted by Nokia in Mountain View, CA, USA on February 29 thru March 2, 2000. The goal of the workshop was to assess current and future uses of Internet technology in wireless environments, to make recommendations on research and standardization tasks to improve acceptance of Internet network and transport protocols in wireless environments, and to evaluate methods to improve communication and collaboration among Internet standards working groups and those of the telephony and wireless sectors. This report summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of the IAB on behalf of the IETF community.
本文档概述了互联网体系结构委员会（IAB）举办的无线互联网研讨会。该研讨会由诺基亚于2000年2月29日至3月2日在美国加利福尼亚州山景城主办。研讨会的目标是评估互联网技术在无线环境中的当前和未来用途，就研究和标准化任务提出建议，以提高无线环境中互联网网络和传输协议的接受度，以及评估改善互联网标准工作组与电话和无线行业工作组之间沟通和协作的方法。本报告总结了IAB代表IETF社区提出的结论和建议。
Comments should be submitted to the IAB-Wireless-Workshop@ietf.org mailing list.
意见应提交给IAB-Workshop@ietf.org邮件列表。
Table of Contents
目录
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Presentation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Discussion and Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Discussion on "Walled Garden" Service Model . . . . . 9
3.2 Discussion on Mobility and Roaming . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1 Discussion on Mobility and Roaming Model . . . . . . 11
3.2.2 Discussion on Mobility and Roaming Protocols . . . . 11
3.2.3 Discussion on Mobility and Roaming Services . . . . . 12
3.3 Discussion on Security Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1 Discussion on User Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2 Discussion on WAP Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Presentation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Discussion and Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Discussion on "Walled Garden" Service Model . . . . . 9
3.2 Discussion on Mobility and Roaming . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1 Discussion on Mobility and Roaming Model . . . . . . 11
3.2.2 Discussion on Mobility and Roaming Protocols . . . . 11
3.2.3 Discussion on Mobility and Roaming Services . . . . . 12
3.3 Discussion on Security Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1 Discussion on User Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2 Discussion on WAP Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.3 Discussion on 3G Network Security . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 Discussion on Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1 Discussion on Link Characteristics and Mobility
Effect on Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.2 Discussion on WAP Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.3 Discussion on IETF Transport Activities . . . . . . . 16
3.5 Discussion on Aeronautical Telecommunication Network
(ATN) Routing Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6 Discussion on QoS Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6.1 Discussion on "Last Leg" QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6.2 Discussion on Path QoS Discovery . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.7 Discussion on Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 Discussion on Applications Protocols . . . . . . . . 21
3.9 Discussion on Proxy Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.10 Discussion on Adoption of IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.11 Discussion on Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.12 Discussion on Interactions Between IETF and Other
Standards Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1 Recommendations on Fostering Interaction with Non-
Internet Standards Organizations . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2 Recommendations for Dealing with "Walled Garden"
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3 Recommendations on IPv4 and IPv6 Scaling . . . . . . 27
4.4 Recommendations on IPv4 and IPv6 Mobility . . . . . . 28
4.5 Recommendations on TCP and Transport Protocols . . . 29
4.6 Recommendations on Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.7 Recommendations on Mobile Host QoS Support . . . . . 32
4.8 Recommendations on Application Mobility . . . . . . . 33
4.9 Recommendations on TCP/IP Performance Characterization
in WAP-like Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.10 Recommendations on Protocol Encoding . . . . . . . . 33
4.11 Recommendations on Inter-Domain AAA Services . . . . 34
4.12 Recommendations on Bluetooth . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.13 Recommendations on Proxy Architecture . . . . . . . . 34
4.14 Recommendations on Justifying IPv6-based Solutions for
Mobile / Wireless Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.3 Discussion on 3G Network Security . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 Discussion on Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1 Discussion on Link Characteristics and Mobility
Effect on Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.2 Discussion on WAP Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.3 Discussion on IETF Transport Activities . . . . . . . 16
3.5 Discussion on Aeronautical Telecommunication Network
(ATN) Routing Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6 Discussion on QoS Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6.1 Discussion on "Last Leg" QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6.2 Discussion on Path QoS Discovery . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.7 Discussion on Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 Discussion on Applications Protocols . . . . . . . . 21
3.9 Discussion on Proxy Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.10 Discussion on Adoption of IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.11 Discussion on Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.12 Discussion on Interactions Between IETF and Other
Standards Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1 Recommendations on Fostering Interaction with Non-
Internet Standards Organizations . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2 Recommendations for Dealing with "Walled Garden"
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3 Recommendations on IPv4 and IPv6 Scaling . . . . . . 27
4.4 Recommendations on IPv4 and IPv6 Mobility . . . . . . 28
4.5 Recommendations on TCP and Transport Protocols . . . 29
4.6 Recommendations on Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.7 Recommendations on Mobile Host QoS Support . . . . . 32
4.8 Recommendations on Application Mobility . . . . . . . 33
4.9 Recommendations on TCP/IP Performance Characterization
in WAP-like Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.10 Recommendations on Protocol Encoding . . . . . . . . 33
4.11 Recommendations on Inter-Domain AAA Services . . . . 34
4.12 Recommendations on Bluetooth . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.13 Recommendations on Proxy Architecture . . . . . . . . 34
4.14 Recommendations on Justifying IPv6-based Solutions for
Mobile / Wireless Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1 Introduction
1导言
Wireless technology, including wireless LANs, data transfer over cellular radio (GSM, 3GPP, etc), and mobile operations from aircraft and near earth spacecraft are becoming increasingly important. Some market projections suggest that a mobile Internet in parallel with or augmenting the wired Internet may be comparable in size to the wired Internet as early as 2003.
无线技术，包括无线局域网、通过蜂窝无线电（GSM、3GPP等）进行的数据传输，以及来自飞机和近地航天器的移动操作正变得越来越重要。一些市场预测表明，早在2003年，与有线互联网并行或扩展的移动互联网在规模上可能与有线互联网相当。
The wireless operators have not, however, chosen to use IPv4, TCP, full HTTP/HTML, and other applications for a variety of reasons. These relate to edge device cost, bandwidth limitations, perceived protocol imperfections, unnecessary complexities, the chattiness of the application protocols, and network layer addressing issues. Unfortunately, this creates some serious issues at the wired/wireless demarcation: end to end operation is sacrificed, security is compromised, and automated content modification in some form becomes necessary. The IAB considers these to be serious fundamental issues, which will in time be a serious impediment to the usability of the combined Internet if not addressed.
然而，由于各种原因，无线运营商尚未选择使用IPv4、TCP、完整HTTP/HTML和其他应用程序。这些与边缘设备成本、带宽限制、感知到的协议缺陷、不必要的复杂性、应用程序协议的聊天性以及网络层寻址问题有关。不幸的是，这在有线/无线划分上造成了一些严重的问题：牺牲了端到端操作，安全性受到损害，并且需要以某种形式进行自动内容修改。IAB认为这些是严重的基本问题，如果不解决这些问题，最终将严重阻碍联合互联网的可用性。
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB), on February 29 thru March 2, 2000, held an invitational workshop on wireless internetworking. The goal of the workshop was to assess current and future uses of Internet technology in wireless environments, to make recommendations on research and standardization tasks to improve acceptance of Internet network and transport protocols in wireless environments, and to evaluate methods to improve communication and collaboration among Internet standards working groups and those of the telephony and wireless sectors.
互联网架构委员会（IAB）于2000年2月29日至3月2日举办了一次无线互联网邀请研讨会。研讨会的目标是评估互联网技术在无线环境中的当前和未来用途，就研究和标准化任务提出建议，以提高无线环境中互联网网络和传输协议的接受度，以及评估改善互联网标准工作组与电话和无线行业工作组之间沟通和协作的方法。
The following topics were defined for discussion:
定义了以下讨论主题：
+ Local area wireless technologies
+ 本地无线技术
+ Cellular wireless technologies
+ 蜂窝无线技术
+ Wireless Application Protocol (WAP)
+ 无线应用协议（WAP）
+ Near-space and aviation wireless applications
+ 近空间和航空无线应用
+ Voice over IP (VoIP) over wireless networks
+ 通过无线网络的IP语音（VoIP）
+ Security over wireless networks
+ 无线网络安全
+ Transport and QoS over wireless networks
+ 无线网络上的传输和QoS
+ Use of WWW protocols over wireless and small screen devices
+ 在无线和小屏幕设备上使用WWW协议
+ Addressing requirements for wireless devices
+ 解决无线设备的需求
+ Compression and bit error requirements for wireless networks
+ 无线网络的压缩和误码要求
The fundamental question addressed in these discussion is "what are the issues, and what really needs to be done to unify the Internet below the application layer." Applications will also need to be addressed, but were perceived to be more than could be usefully discussed in a three-day workshop, and probably require different expertise.
这些讨论中涉及的基本问题是“什么是问题，以及真正需要做什么才能将互联网统一到应用层之下”。应用程序也需要解决，但被认为比在三天的研讨会中讨论更有用，并且可能需要不同的专业知识。
Section 2 presents a concise overview of the individual presentations made during the workshop. References to more extensive materials are provided. Details on major discussion topics are provided in section 3. Section 4 presents the recommendations made to wireless operators, IRTF, and IETF on the architectural roadmap for the next few years. It should be noted that not all participants agreed with all of the statements, and it was not clear whether anyone agreed with all of them. However, the recommendations made are based on strong consensus among the participants. Finally, section 5 highlights references to security considerations discussed, appendix A lists contact information of workshop participants, and appendix B lists the author contact information.
第2节简要概述了研讨会期间所作的个别介绍。提供了更广泛材料的参考。有关主要讨论主题的详细信息，请参见第3节。第4节介绍了对无线运营商、IRTF和IETF提出的关于未来几年架构路线图的建议。应当指出，并非所有与会者都同意所有发言，也不清楚是否有人同意所有发言。然而，提出的建议是基于与会者之间的强烈共识。最后，第5节重点介绍了所讨论的安全注意事项，附录A列出了研讨会参与者的联系信息，附录B列出了作者的联系信息。
2 Presentation Overview
2演示文稿概述
Title: Overview of Wireless IP Devices (Network Implications...)
标题：无线IP设备概述（网络影响…）
Presenter: Heikki Hammainen
主持人：海基·哈马宁
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/hh-IABpub.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/hh-IABpub.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/hh-IABpub.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/hh-IABpub.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Overview of IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN's & Issues Running IP over IEEE 802.11?
标题：IEEE802.11无线局域网概述和通过IEEE802.11运行IP的问题？
Presenter: Juha Ala-Laurila
主持人：朱哈·阿拉·劳里拉
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-work-
shop/talks/IEEE80211_IP.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-work-
shop/talks/IEEE80211_IP.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Overview of Bluetooth Wireless & Issues Running IP over Bluetooth?
标题：蓝牙无线概述和通过蓝牙运行IP的问题？
Presenter: Pravin Bhagwat
主持人：Pravin Bhagwat
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/BT-
overview.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/BT-
overview.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/BT-
overview.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/BT-
overview.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Overview of Cellular Data Systems & Approaches to more IP centric Cellular Data System
标题：蜂窝数据系统概述&以IP为中心的蜂窝数据系统的实现方法
Presenter: Jonne Soinien
主持人：Jonne Soinien
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/
Cellular_JSo.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/
Cellular_JSo.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/
Cellular_JSo.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/
Cellular_JSo.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: IP Packet Data Service over IS-95 CDMA
标题：IS-95 CDMA上的IP分组数据业务
Presenter: Phil Karn
主持人：菲尔·卡恩
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/karn/index.htm
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/karn/index.htm
Overview:
概述：
Title: Wireless Internet Networking
标题：无线互联网网络
Presenter: Chih-Lin I
主讲人：智林一
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/IAB000229.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/IAB000229.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/IAB000229.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/IAB000229.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Mobile IP in Cellular Data Systems
标题：蜂窝数据系统中的移动IP
Presenter: Charlie Perkins
主持人：查理·帕金斯
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/WLIP99.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/WLIP99.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/WLIP99.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/WLIP99.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Overview of WAP
标题：WAP概述
Presenter: Alastair Angwin
主持人：阿拉斯泰尔·安格温
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-wap-1.pdf
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-wap-1.pdf
Overview:
概述：
Title: Mobile Wireless Internet Forum (MWIF)
标题：移动无线互联网论坛（MWIF）
Presenter: Alastair Angwin
主持人：阿拉斯泰尔·安格温
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/MWIF_TC
_Presentation.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/MWIF_TC
_Presentation.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/MWIF_TC
_Presentation.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/MWIF_TC
_Presentation.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Some WAP History
标题：一些WAP历史
Presenter: Jerry Lahti
主持人：杰瑞·拉赫蒂
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/waphist.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/waphist.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/waphist.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/waphist.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Near-space Wireless Applications
标题：近空间无线应用
Presenter: Mark Allman
主持人：马克·奥尔曼
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/allman-iab-
wireless.pdf,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/allman-iab-
wireless.ps
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/allman-iab-
wireless.pdf,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/allman-iab-
wireless.ps
Overview:
概述：
Title: Air Traffic / Aviation Wireless
标题：空中交通/航空无线
Presenter: Chris Wargo
主持人：克里斯·沃戈
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/wargo-talk.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/wargo-talk.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/wargo-talk.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/wargo-talk.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: VoIP over Wireless
标题：无线网络电话
Presenter: Christian Huitema
主持人：克里斯蒂安·惠特马
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-wless-
voip.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-wless-
voip.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-wless-
voip.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-wless-
voip.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Security Issues in Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing
标题：无线网络和移动计算中的安全问题
Presenter: N. Asokan
主持人：麻生
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/mobile-secu-
rity.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/mobile-secu-
rity.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/mobile-secu-
rity.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/mobile-secu-
rity.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Security for Mobile IP in 3G Networks
标题：3G网络中移动IP的安全性
Presenter: Pat Calhoun
主持人：帕特·卡尔霍恩
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/mip-sec-3g.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/mip-sec-3g.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/mip-sec-3g.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/mip-sec-3g.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: On Inter-layer Assumptions (A View from the Transport Area)
标题：关于层间假设（从运输区域看）
Presenter: Mark Handley
主持人：马克·汉德利
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/handley-
wireless.pdf,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/handley-wire-
less.ps
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/handley-
wireless.pdf,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/handley-wire-
less.ps
Overview:
概述：
Title: Does current Internet Transport work over Wireless?
标题：当前的互联网传输是否通过无线方式工作？
Presenter: Sally Floyd
主持人：莎莉·弗洛伊德
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/IAB-wireless-
Mar00.pdf,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/IAB-wireless-
Mar00.ps
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/IAB-wireless-
Mar00.pdf,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/IAB-wireless-
Mar00.ps
Overview:
概述：
Title: QOS for Wireless (DiffServ, IntServ, other?)
标题：无线服务质量（区分服务、综合服务、其他？）
Presenter: Lixia Zhang
主持人：张丽霞
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/zhang-feb-
IAB.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/zhang-feb-
IAB.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/zhang-feb-
IAB.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/zhang-feb-
IAB.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Do current WWW Protocols work over Wireless and Small Screen Devices?
标题：当前的WWW协议是否适用于无线和小屏幕设备？
Presenter: Gabriel Montenegro
主持人：加布里埃尔·黑山
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/wireless-
www.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/wireless-
www.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/wireless-
www.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/wireless-
www.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Compression & Bit Error Requirements for Wireless
标题：无线通信的压缩和误码要求
Presenter: Mikael Degermark
主持人：米凯尔·德格马克
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-hc.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-hc.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-hc.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/iab-hc.ppt
Overview:
概述：
Title: Addressing Requirements for Wireless Devices & IPv6
标题：解决无线设备和IPv6的需求
Presenter: Bob Hinden
主持人：鲍勃·欣登
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/Addressing-
IPv6.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/Addressing-
IPv6.ppt
Reference:
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/Addressing-
IPv6.PDF,
http://www.iab.org/IAB-wireless-workshop/talks/Addressing-
IPv6.ppt
Overview:
概述：
3 Discussion and Observations
3讨论和意见
During the workshop presentations a number of issues were discussed and observations made. The following sections 3.1 -- 3.12 summarize these discussion and observations. Rather than organizing the material linearly by presentation, it is grouped according to common "themes" and issues.
在讲习班的专题介绍中，讨论了一些问题并提出了意见。以下第3.1-3.12节总结了这些讨论和观察结果。它不是按演示文稿线性组织材料，而是根据常见的“主题”和问题进行分组。
Presentations from members involved in the cellular wireless (3GPP, 3G.IP, MWIF) and WAP environments quickly illustrated a significant difference in protocol specification and service models from that typically assumed by the Internet community. These communities focus on defining a profile (set of protocols and operational parameters) that combine to provide a well defined user service. In addition, the carriers typically prefer to have complete (or as much as possible) control over the entire service, including user access device, transmission facilities, and service "content". This style of service model appears to have been inherited from the classic telephony provider model. The term "walled garden" was coined to describe the resulting captive customer economic and service model. That is, the user is constrained within the limits of the service provided by the carrier with limited ability to extend features or access services outside the provider. The "walled garden" service model is in stark contrast to the "open" service assumed in the Internet. The application, access device, and service content may each be controlled by a different entity, and the service provider is typically viewed as little more than a "bit pipe".
参与蜂窝无线（3GPP、3G.IP、MWIF）和WAP环境的成员的演示很快说明了协议规范和服务模型与互联网社区通常假设的显著差异。这些社区侧重于定义一个概要文件（一组协议和操作参数），这些概要文件结合起来提供定义良好的用户服务。此外，运营商通常更希望对整个服务（包括用户接入设备、传输设施和服务“内容”）拥有完全（或尽可能多的）控制。这种类型的服务模型似乎是从经典的电话服务提供商模型继承而来的。“围墙花园”一词是用来描述由此产生的专属客户经济和服务模式的。也就是说，用户被限制在由运营商提供的服务的限制内，并且在提供商之外扩展特征或访问服务的能力有限。“围墙花园”服务模式与互联网上假定的“开放”服务形成鲜明对比。应用程序、接入设备和服务内容可以各自由不同的实体控制，并且服务提供者通常被视为仅仅是一个“比特管道”。
Additionally, specification typically define a standalone protocol or application rather than the set of features and interoperation with other components required to deploy a commercial service.
此外，规范通常定义一个独立的协议或应用程序，而不是一组特性和与部署商业服务所需的其他组件的互操作。
Some discussion focused on whether cellular carriers could be persuaded to transition toward the Internet "open" service model. Responses indicated that there was little hope of this as carriers will always fight being reduced to a "bit pipe", fearing they cannot sustain sufficient revenues without the value added services. An additional point raised was that the closed model of the "walled garden" simplifies a number of issues, such as security, authorization, and billing when the entire network is considered secured and controlled under a single administration. These simplification can eliminate roadblocks to service deployment before scalable, interdomain solutions are available.
一些讨论集中在能否说服蜂窝运营商向互联网“开放”服务模式过渡。回应表明，这一点几乎没有希望，因为运营商总是在努力减少“比特管道”，担心没有增值服务，他们无法维持足够的收入。提出的另一点是，“围墙花园”的封闭模式简化了许多问题，例如，当整个网络被视为在单一管理下安全和控制时，安全、授权和计费。这些简化可以在可扩展的域间解决方案可用之前消除服务部署的障碍。
Even though there seems little hope of evolving carriers away from the "walled garden" service in the short term, there was significant value in recognizing its presence. This led to observations that "walled garden" Internet-based services will operate somewhat like current intranet services. Also, mechanisms should be investigated to simplify interoperation and controlled access to the Internet. Finally, the difference between Internet protocol specification contrasted to service profiles highlights some of the confusion those in the telephony environment encounter when attempting to incorporate Internet capabilities.
尽管短期内似乎不大可能让运营商摆脱“围墙花园”服务，但认识到它的存在具有重大价值。这导致人们观察到“围墙花园”基于互联网的服务将在某种程度上类似于当前的内部网服务。此外，还应研究各种机制，以简化互操作并控制对互联网的访问。最后，Internet协议规范与服务配置文件之间的差异突出了电话环境中那些试图整合Internet功能时遇到的一些困惑。
Much of the current work in extending Internet-based services to cellular customers has focused on data services such as email or web access. One observation on the reluctance of carriers to release any control over services was that this may be an impediment to adoption of Internet-based voice services. Current work on voice over IP (VoIP) and call signaling (SIP [30]) loosens control over these services, much of the functionality is moved into the SIP agent with the carrier being reduced to an access provider (i.e., "bit pipe").
当前将基于互联网的服务扩展到手机用户的工作主要集中在数据服务上，如电子邮件或网络访问。关于运营商不愿解除对服务的任何控制的一项观察结果是，这可能会阻碍采用基于互联网的语音服务。当前关于IP语音（VoIP）和呼叫信令（SIP[30]）的工作放松了对这些服务的控制，许多功能被转移到SIP代理中，运营商被简化为接入提供商（即“比特管道”）。
An inherent characteristic of wireless systems is their potential for accommodating device roaming and mobility. Some discussion focused on the model of mobility presented to the user. There was also considerable interest and discussion on protocols employed, using cellular telephony and/or IP-based solutions. Finally, there was some interest in exploring new services enabled by mobility.
无线系统的一个固有特征是其适应设备漫游和移动的潜力。一些讨论集中在向用户展示的移动性模型上。对于使用蜂窝电话和/或基于IP的解决方案所采用的协议也有相当大的兴趣和讨论。最后，人们有兴趣探索由移动性提供的新服务。
There was considerable discussion and concern over what style of mobility and roaming needs to be supported. Current usage in the Internet is dominated by the mode where a user performs some actions at one location, then shuts down and moves, followed by restart at a new location.
对于需要支持哪种移动和漫游方式，人们进行了大量的讨论和关注。当前互联网的使用模式主要是用户在一个位置执行某些操作，然后关机并移动，然后在新位置重新启动。
3G.IP uses the term "macro mobility" to describe this mode.
3G.IP使用术语“宏观移动”来描述这种模式。
The discussion attempted to discern whether the current mode of usage is a perceived limitation introduced by current protocols. A clear consensus could not be achieved. There was agreement that introduction of this "macro mobility" roaming is a worthwhile first step. However, that was immediately followed by questions on whether it is a sufficient first step, and warning not to stop at this level. There seems significant issues for continued investigation related to enabling continual usage of a device during roaming ("micro mobility") and the ability to retrieve previous connections after a roaming event.
讨论试图辨别当前的使用模式是否是当前协议引入的感知限制。无法达成明确的共识。与会者一致认为，引入这种“宏观移动”漫游是值得迈出的第一步。然而，紧接着是关于这是否是足够的第一步的问题，并警告不要停留在这一水平。在漫游期间持续使用设备（“微移动”）以及在漫游事件后检索以前连接的能力方面，似乎存在需要继续调查的重大问题。
Selection between cellular and IP protocols in support of roaming provided another topic for significant discussion. Cellular operators have already deployed protocols providing significant support for roaming. This has led several efforts, such as 3GPP and 3G.IP, toward architecture relying on telephone system for all mobility support, hiding roaming from the IP layer.
支持漫游的蜂窝和IP协议之间的选择提供了另一个重要的讨论主题。蜂窝网络运营商已经部署了为漫游提供重要支持的协议。这导致了一些努力，如3GPP和3G.IP，转向依赖电话系统的架构，以获得所有移动支持，从而隐藏来自IP层的漫游。
Arguments for cellular-based roaming centered on concerns about the mobile IP model. There was concern that home agent and foreign agent involvement in delivery might introduce bottleneck, and the perception that mobile IP handoff is too slow. A rebuttal offered was that IETF mobileip working group is introducing hierarchy and route optimization to improve performance and robustness [50], and there was disagreement on the point regarding slow handoff under mobile IP.
基于蜂窝的漫游的争论集中在对移动IP模式的关注上。有人担心本地代理和外国代理参与交付可能会带来瓶颈，并认为移动IP切换太慢。有人反驳说，IETF mobileip工作组正在引入层次结构和路由优化，以提高性能和鲁棒性[50]，在移动IP下的慢速切换问题上存在分歧。
Detriments to the cellular-based roaming include the lack of IP support out to the mobile device and the added tunneling protocols and overhead required. Additionally, roaming is less well defined when traversing service provider boundaries and may involve highly non-optimal forwarding path. There appears significant work remaining to reach convergence on opinions, and additional investigation to support roaming across cellular, WLAN, and IP boundaries.
对基于蜂窝的漫游的损害包括缺少对移动设备的IP支持，以及所需的额外隧道协议和开销。此外，漫游在穿越服务提供商边界时定义不太明确，可能涉及高度非最优的转发路径。看来还有大量工作要做，以便在意见上达成一致，并进行额外的调查，以支持跨蜂窝、WLAN和IP边界漫游。
3G.IP mobility model is primarily focused on providing ubiquitous service across a range of access media. However, the presentation also highlighted a desire to develop new "location based" services. Examples presented include locating nearby services or receiving advertisement and solicitations from nearby business.
3G.IP移动性模型主要关注于在各种接入媒体上提供无处不在的服务。然而，该演示还强调了开发新的“基于位置”服务的愿望。示例包括定位附近的服务或接收附近企业的广告和招揽。
There are several Internet protocols defined, such as anycast service [47] and SLP [28], that may aid in developing location based services. However, there was considerable frustration on the part of 3G.IP in that there appears little commercial support of these protocols, and even less direction on how to assemble and coordinate the required protocols to deploy the desired services.
有几种定义的互联网协议，如选播服务[47]和SLP[28]，可以帮助开发基于位置的服务。然而，3G.IP方面有相当大的挫折感，因为这些协议的商业支持似乎很少，在如何组装和协调所需协议以部署所需服务方面的指导更少。
This exchange illustrated the disconnect between interpreting Internet standards and telephony service profiles. First, in the Internet many protocols are defined but many are optional. Protocol support is typically driven by market demand, which can lead to "chicken and egg" problem. Secondly, individual protocols and applications are developed rather than complete profile to compose a commercial service. For this service, evaluating the usage and scalability of service discovery protocols appears to be an area open for further investigation.
这种交流说明了解释互联网标准和电话服务配置文件之间的脱节。首先，在互联网上定义了许多协议，但许多协议是可选的。协议支持通常由市场需求驱动，这可能导致“鸡和蛋”问题。其次，开发单独的协议和应用程序，而不是完整的配置文件，以组成商业服务。对于该服务，评估服务发现协议的使用情况和可伸缩性似乎是一个有待进一步研究的领域。
Mobility and wireless environments introduce many complexities and potential attacks to user authentication and privacy. In addition to the discussion presented below, there was an overriding statement made regarding the methodology that must be followed for all security protocol development. It was felt quite strongly that the only chance for success is that the definition be done in a public forum, allowing full disclosure of all algorithms and thorough review by security experts. Stated an alternate way, defining protocols in a closed forum relying on cellphone manufacturers, or other non-experts on IP security, is very likely to create security exposures.
移动和无线环境给用户身份验证和隐私带来了许多复杂性和潜在的攻击。除了下面介绍的讨论之外，还就所有安全协议开发必须遵循的方法发表了压倒性的声明。人们强烈认为，成功的唯一机会是在公开论坛上进行定义，允许充分披露所有算法并由安全专家进行彻底审查。另一种说法是，在一个依赖手机制造商或其他非IP安全专家的封闭论坛上定义协议很可能会造成安全风险。
Storage of user identity can have significant effect on device usage and device portability. Discussion focused on whether identity should be tied to the mobile device or a transferable SIM card. Fixing identification with the device may simplify manufacture and provide some tamper resistance, however it makes it very difficult to deploy a public device taking on the identity of the user. These alternative also affect transfer of identity and configuration state on device replacement or upgrade.
用户身份的存储会对设备使用和设备可移植性产生重大影响。讨论的焦点是身份应该绑定到移动设备上还是可以转移的SIM卡上。使用设备固定标识可以简化制造并提供一些防篡改功能，但是这使得部署具有用户身份的公共设备非常困难。这些替代方案还影响设备更换或升级时标识和配置状态的传输。
A related topic revolves around the user desire to employ a single device but to take on a different identity and privilege based on the usage at hand (e.g., to gain corporate access, home access, or Internet access). The ability and ease of assuming these multiple identities may be highly dependent on the model of identity integration, as discussed above. Discussion highlighted potential pitfalls based on tieing of device and user identities. IPsec use of device IP address inhibits roaming capabilities as the address may change based on location, and precludes distinguishing identity and capabilities for current usage. IPsec requires additional work to accommodate this added flexibility.
一个相关主题围绕着用户使用单个设备的愿望，但根据手头的使用情况（例如，获得公司访问、家庭访问或互联网访问）采用不同的身份和特权。如上所述，假设这些多重身份的能力和容易程度可能高度依赖于身份整合模型。讨论强调了基于设备和用户身份绑定的潜在缺陷。IPsec使用设备IP地址会禁止漫游功能，因为地址可能会根据位置发生变化，并阻止区分当前使用的身份和功能。IPsec需要额外的工作来适应这种增加的灵活性。
A final topic of discussion on user identity establishment was whether possession of the device is sufficient, or whether the user should be required to authenticate to the device. In the real world the first alternative is exemplified by the credit card model, while the second is more analogous to the ATM card where the user must also provide a PIN code. Both models seem useful in the real world, and it's likely both will have uses in wireless networking.
关于建立用户身份的最后一个讨论主题是拥有该设备是否足够，或者是否应要求用户对该设备进行身份验证。在现实世界中，第一种选择以信用卡模型为例，而第二种更类似于ATM卡，用户还必须提供PIN码。这两种模型在现实世界中似乎都很有用，而且很可能在无线网络中都有应用。
WAP wireless transport security (WTLS) is based on TLS [20], with optimized handshake to allow frequent key exchange. The security service employs a "vertical" integration model, with protocol components throughout the network stack. Some argued that this is the wrong model. A better approach may have been a security layer with well defined interfaces. This could allow for later tradeoffs among different protocols, driven by market, applications, and device capabilities.
WAP无线传输安全（WTLS）基于TLS[20]，通过优化的握手，允许频繁的密钥交换。安全服务采用“垂直”集成模型，协议组件贯穿整个网络堆栈。一些人认为这是错误的模式。更好的方法可能是使用定义良好的接口的安全层。这将允许在市场、应用程序和设备能力的驱动下，在不同协议之间进行权衡。
Additional statements argued that the WAP security model illustrates dangers from optimizing for a limited usage domain ("walled garden"). Content provider systems requiring security (e.g., banks) must deploy a special WAP proxy, which breaks the model of a single WAP "domain". Similar issues are inherent in gatewaying to the Internet.
其他声明认为，WAP安全模型说明了针对有限使用域（“围墙花园”）进行优化的危险。要求安全的内容提供商系统（如银行）必须部署一个特殊的WAP代理，这打破了单一WAP“域”的模式。类似的问题也存在于互联网网关中。
The existing GSM/GPRS model uses long term shared secrets (embedded in SIM card) with one-way authentication to the network, and with privacy only provided on the access link. This is an example where the "walled garden" service model has an advantage. Complete control over the service access devices and network greatly reduces the range of security concerns and potential attacks.
现有的GSM/GPRS模型使用长期共享秘密（嵌入SIM卡），并对网络进行单向身份验证，仅在接入链路上提供隐私。这是一个“围墙花园”服务模式具有优势的例子。对服务访问设备和网络的完全控制大大减少了安全问题和潜在攻击的范围。
Future 3GPP and 3GPP2 plan to push IP all the way out to the wireless device. An observation is that this results in more potential for exposure of signaling and control plane to attacks. Desire is to perform mutual authentication and securing of the network. This is a difficult problem with additional issues remaining to be solved; however the statement was made that relying on IP and open standards is more likely to produce a provably secure network than former reliance on SS7 protocols and obscurity.
未来的3GPP和3GPP2计划将IP推送到无线设备。一个观察结果是，这导致信号和控制平面更容易受到攻击。我们的愿望是执行网络的相互身份验证和安全保护。这是一个难题，还有其他问题有待解决；然而，有人表示，与以前依赖SS7协议和隐蔽性相比，依赖IP和开放标准更有可能产生一个可证明安全的网络。
Completing support for the security requirements of the 3GPP/3GPP2 network seems to require resolving issues in two primary areas, AAA services and mobile IP. AAA is required for authentication, authorization, and billing. Remaining issues center around cross domain AAA, authentication using PKI, and there was considerable aversion to use of IPsec and IKE protocols due to perceived overhead and delay. Mobile IP issues revolve around solutions to reduce the security associations required between mobile node and home agent, mobile node and foreign agent, and the home and foreign agent. An interim solution being investigated involves use of a RADIUS server [56]; however, there are concerns with repeated dynamic key generation on each handoff or hiding some details of handoffs, which may violate assumptions in mobile IP protocol [48]. Evaluating requirements and addressing all of these open issues appears to be an excellent opportunity for mutual cooperation on open standardization and review.
完成对3GPP/3GPP2网络安全要求的支持似乎需要解决两个主要领域的问题，即AAA服务和移动IP。认证、授权和计费需要AAA。剩下的问题集中在跨域AAA、使用PKI的身份验证，由于感知到的开销和延迟，人们对使用IPsec和IKE协议有相当大的反感。移动IP问题围绕着减少移动节点和归属代理、移动节点和外部代理以及归属代理和外部代理之间所需的安全关联的解决方案。正在研究的临时解决方案涉及使用RADIUS服务器[56]；然而，存在在每次切换时重复动态密钥生成或隐藏切换的某些细节的问题，这可能违反移动IP协议中的假设[48]。评估需求并解决所有这些开放问题似乎是在开放标准化和审查方面相互合作的一个极好机会。
Discussion on transport protocols touched on a broad range of issues. Concerns ranged from the effects of wireless link characteristics and mobility effect on TCP, to development of new transport protocols such as WAP Wireless Transaction Protocol (WTP). In addition, a significant amount of time was spent reviewing ongoing efforts within the IETF on TCP transport enhancements and investigation of new transports.
关于传输协议的讨论涉及广泛的问题。关注范围从无线链路特性和移动性对TCP的影响，到开发新的传输协议，如WAP无线事务协议（WTP）。此外，还花了大量时间审查IETF内部正在进行的TCP传输增强和新传输调查工作。
3.4.1 Discussion on Link Characteristics and Mobility Effect on Transport
3.4.1 链路特性及移动性对交通影响的探讨
TCP makes assumptions on loss as congestion indication. The statement was made that TCP was designed for links with about 1% corruption loss, and provided that constraint is met then TCP should function properly. Presentation on IS-95 CDMA-based data service showed that it conditions line to provide 1--2% error rate with little correlation between loss. Similar conditioning and Forward Error Correction (FEC) mechanisms may be appropriate for other wireless and satellite systems [4]. This may not be true for all wireless media, but it was interesting in the fact that it indicates
TCP将丢失作为拥塞指示进行假设。声明称，TCP是为大约1%损坏损失的链路设计的，如果满足约束条件，则TCP应该正常工作。在基于IS-95 CDMA的数据业务上的演示表明，它要求线路提供1-2%的错误率，而损耗之间的相关性很小。类似的调节和前向纠错（FEC）机制可能适用于其他无线和卫星系统[4]。这可能并不适用于所有无线媒体，但有趣的是，它表明
TCP should work properly on many wireless media. However, the amount of discussion and suggestions on TCP performance optimizations showed that there can be a considerable gap between merely working and working well.
TCP应该在许多无线媒体上正常工作。然而，大量关于TCP性能优化的讨论和建议表明，仅仅工作和良好工作之间可能存在相当大的差距。
One issue raised several times was related to the effects of non-congestive loss on TCP performance. In the wireless environment non-congestive loss may be more prevalent due to corruption loss (especially if the wireless link cannot be conditioned to properly control error rate) or an effect of mobility (e.g., temporary outage while roaming through an area of poor coverage). These losses can have great detrimental effect on TCP performance, reducing the transmission window and halving the congestion window size. Much of the discussion focused on proposing mechanisms to explicitly indicate a non-congestive loss to the TCP source. Suggestions included a Non-Congestive Loss Indication (NCLI) sent for instance when packet corruption loss is detected, or sending a Source Encourage (SE) to stimulate source transmission at the end of an outage. In addition to data corruption, wireless links can also experience dropouts. In this situation any active TCP sessions will commence periodic retransmissions, using an exponentially increasing back-off timer between each attempt. When the link becomes available it may be many seconds before the TCP sessions resume transmission. Mechanisms to alleviate this problem, including packet caching and triggered retransmission were discussed. The more generic form of all of these mechanisms is one that allows the state of the layer two (datalink) system to signal to the TCP session its current operating mode. Developing a robust form of such a signaling mechanism, and integrating these signals into the end-to-end TCP control loop may present opportunities to improve TCP transport efficiency for wireless environments.
多次提出的一个问题与非拥塞性丢失对TCP性能的影响有关。在无线环境中，由于损坏损失（特别是如果无线链路无法调节以正确控制错误率）或移动性影响（例如，在通过覆盖较差的区域漫游时临时中断），非拥塞性损失可能更为普遍。这些损失会对TCP性能产生极大的不利影响，减少传输窗口并将拥塞窗口大小减半。大部分讨论集中在提出明确表示TCP源非拥塞性丢失的机制上。建议包括例如在检测到数据包损坏丢失时发送的非拥塞丢失指示（NCLI），或在中断结束时发送源鼓励（SE）以刺激源传输。除了数据损坏外，无线链路还可能出现丢失。在这种情况下，任何活动TCP会话都将开始定期重新传输，在每次尝试之间使用指数级递增的后退计时器。当链路可用时，TCP会话可能需要几秒钟才能恢复传输。讨论了缓解这一问题的机制，包括数据包缓存和触发重传。所有这些机制的更通用形式是允许第二层（数据链路）系统的状态向TCP会话发送其当前操作模式的信号。开发这种信令机制的健壮形式，并将这些信号集成到端到端TCP控制环路中，可能会为提高无线环境中的TCP传输效率提供机会。
TCP improvements have been incorporated to support "long" links (i.e., those with large delay and bandwidth characteristics) [36], however considerable expertise may still be required to tune socket buffers for maximum performance. Some work has been done on auto-tuning buffers, which shows promise [58]. An additional problem with large windows and auto-tuning is the added header overheads. This may exasperate the problems of running TCP over low bandwidth links. Suggestions included to explore dynamic negotiation of large window extensions in the middle of a connection to alleviate these issues. A final issue raised with regardport (see discussion below in section 3.4.3).
TCP改进已被纳入支持“长”链路（即，具有大延迟和带宽特性的链路）[36]，但仍需要相当多的专业知识来调整套接字缓冲区以获得最大性能。已经在自动调整缓冲区方面做了一些工作，这显示了希望[58]。大窗口和自动调整的另一个问题是增加了标头开销。这可能会加剧在低带宽链路上运行TCP的问题。建议包括探索动态谈判的大窗口扩展在中间的连接，以减轻这些问题。regardport提出的最后一个问题（见下文第3.4.3节的讨论）。
There was also concern regarding mobility effects on TCP performance. TCP has implicit assumptions on bounding propagation delay. If delay exceeds the smoothed round trip time plus four times the round trip variance then the segment is considered lost, triggering the normal
还有人担心移动性对TCP性能的影响。TCP对边界传播延迟有隐含的假设。如果延迟超过平滑往返时间加上往返差异的四倍，则认为该段丢失，触发正常
backoff procedures. Could these assumptions be violated by segment loss or duplication during handoff? Work on D-SACK [25] may alleviate these worries, detecting reordering and allowing for adaptive DUP-ACK threshold. Finally, there was suggestion it might be appropriate to adapt (i.e., trigger slow start) immediately after mobile handoff on the assumption that path characteristics may differ.
退避程序。切换过程中的段丢失或重复是否会违反这些假设？在D-SACK[25]上的工作可以减轻这些担忧，检测重新排序并允许自适应DUP-ACK阈值。最后，有人建议，在假设路径特征可能不同的情况下，在移动切换后立即进行调整（即触发慢启动）可能是合适的。
WAPF considered TCP connection setup and teardown too expensive in terms of bit overhead and latency when required for every transaction. WAPF developed the Wireless Transaction Protocol (WTP), with some inspiration from T/TCP [12]. WTP offers several classes of service ranging from unconfirmed request to single request with single reply transaction. Data is carried in the first packet and 3-way handshake eliminated to reduce latencies. In addition acknowledgments, retransmission, and flow control are provided.
WAPF认为TCP连接设置和拆卸在每个事务都需要时，在比特开销和延迟方面过于昂贵。WAPF在T/TCP[12]的启发下开发了无线事务协议（WTP）。WTP提供了几类服务，从未确认的请求到具有单回复事务的单请求。数据在第一个数据包中传输，消除了三次握手以减少延迟。此外，还提供确认、重传和流控制。
Discussion on WTP centered on assessing details on its operation. Although it incorporates mechanisms for reliability and flow control there was concern that it may miss critical or subtle transport issues learned through years of Internet research and deployment experience. One potential area for disaster appeared to be the use of fixed retransmission timers and lack of congestion control. This gave rise to suggestions that the IETF write up more details on the history and tradeoffs in transport design to aid others doing transport design work, and secondly that the IETF advocate that the congestion control is not optional when using rate adaptive transport protocols.
关于水处理厂的讨论集中在评估其运营细节上。尽管它结合了可靠性和流量控制机制，但有人担心它可能会错过通过多年的互联网研究和部署经验所学到的关键或微妙的传输问题。一个潜在的灾难领域似乎是使用固定的重传计时器和缺乏拥塞控制。这就产生了这样的建议：IETF应该写更多关于传输设计的历史和权衡的细节，以帮助其他人进行传输设计工作；其次，IETF提倡在使用速率自适应传输协议时，拥塞控制不是可选的。
The remaining discussion on WAP transport primarily focused on ways to share information. It was suggested that any result from WAPF study of TCP shortcomings that led to its rejection might be useful for IETF review as inputs for TCP modifications. Similar comments were raised on study of T/TCP shortcomings and its potential exposure to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. It was also encouraged that the WAPF members participate in the IETF directly contribute requirements and remain abreast of current efforts on evolving TCP operation and introduction of new transport (see discussion below in section 3.4.3.).
关于WAP传输的其余讨论主要集中在共享信息的方式上。有人建议，WAPF对TCP缺陷的研究的任何结果都可能有助于IETF审查，作为TCP修改的输入。对T/TCP的缺点及其可能遭受拒绝服务（DoS）攻击的研究也提出了类似的意见。此外，还鼓励WAPF成员直接参与IETF，并跟上当前关于TCP运行和引入新传输的努力（见下文第3.4.3节的讨论）。
Discussion on transport work in the IETF presented a large array of activities. Recent work on transport improvement includes path MTU, Forward Error Correction (FEC), large windows, SACK, NewReno Fast Recovery, ACK congestion control, segment byte counting, Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN), larger initial transmit windows, and
IETF中有关运输工作的讨论提出了大量活动。最近关于传输改进的工作包括路径MTU、前向纠错（FEC）、大窗口、SACK、NewReno快速恢复、ACK拥塞控制、段字节计数、显式拥塞通知（ECN）、较大的初始传输窗口以及
sharing of related TCP connection state [3,4,5,6,24,25,43,53,63]. Work on new transports includes SCTP [61] in the IETF Signaling Transport (sigtran) working group and TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) [1] by researchers at ACIRI. SCTP provides a reliable UDP-like protocol supporting persistent associations and in-order delivery with congestion control. TFRC is targeted at unreliable, unicast streaming media. Finally, work in the IETF End-point Congestion Management (ecm) working group is looking at standardizing congestion control algorithms, and work in the Performance Implications of Link Characteristics (pilc) working group is characterizing performance impacts of various link technologies and investigating performance improvements.
共享相关TCP连接状态[3,4,5,6,24,25,43,53,63]。新传输的工作包括IETF信令传输（sigtran）工作组中的SCTP[61]和ACIRI研究人员的TCP友好速率控制（TFRC）[1]。SCTP提供了一个可靠的类似UDP的协议，支持持久关联和顺序传递以及拥塞控制。TFRC的目标是不可靠的单播流媒体。最后，IETF端点拥塞管理（ecm）工作组的工作是标准化拥塞控制算法，而链路特性的性能影响（pilc）工作组的工作是描述各种链路技术的性能影响，并调查性能改进。
This vast array of ongoing research and standards development seemed a bit overwhelming, and there was considerable disagreement on the performance and applicability of several TCP extensions. However, this discussion did raise a couple of key points. First, transport work within the Internet community is not stagnant, there is a significant amount of interest and activity in improvement to existing protocols and exploration of new protocols. Secondly, the work with researchers in satellite networking has demonstrated the tremendous success possible in close collaboration. The satellite networking community was dissatisfied with initial TCP performance on long delay links. Through submission of requirements and collaborative investigation a broad range of improvements have been proposed and standardized to address unique characteristics of this environment. This should hopefully set a very positive precedent to encourage those in the wireless sector to pursue similar collaboration in adoption of Internet protocols to their environment.
这些大量正在进行的研究和标准开发似乎有点势不可挡，而且在一些TCP扩展的性能和适用性方面存在着相当大的分歧。然而，这次讨论确实提出了几个关键点。首先，互联网社区内的传输工作并非停滞不前，人们对改进现有协议和探索新协议有着极大的兴趣和活动。第二，与研究人员在卫星网络方面的工作表明，密切合作可能取得巨大成功。卫星网络社区对长延迟链路上的初始TCP性能不满意。通过提交需求和协作调查，提出了广泛的改进方案，并将其标准化，以解决该环境的独特特征。这将有望开创一个非常积极的先例，鼓励无线行业的人员在其环境中采用互联网协议方面进行类似的合作。
3.5 Discussion on Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) Routing Policy
3.5 航空电信网（ATN）路由策略探讨
The Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) has goals to improve and standardize communications in the aviation industry. This ranges across air traffic management and control, navigation and surveillance, all the way up to passenger telephone service and entertainment. This also involves integration of both fixed ground segments and mobile aircraft. Supporting the ATN architecture using Internet protocols may introduce additional requirements on the routing infrastructure.
航空电信网（ATN）的目标是改善和标准化航空工业中的通信。这包括空中交通管理和控制、导航和监视，一直到乘客电话服务和娱乐。这还涉及固定地面段和移动飞机的集成。使用互联网协议支持ATN架构可能会对路由基础设施提出额外要求。
Current ATN views each aircraft as an autonomous network (AS) with changing point of attachment as it "roams" through different airspace. Addressing information associated with the aircraft is fixed, which makes route aggregation difficult since they're not related to topology, and also increases the frequency of updates. Additionally, the aircraft may be multiply attached (within coverage
当前ATN将每架飞机视为一个自治网络（as），当其“漫游”不同空域时，连接点会发生变化。与飞机相关的寻址信息是固定的，这使得路由聚合变得困难，因为它们与拓扑无关，并且还增加了更新的频率。此外，飞机可能会被多重连接（在覆盖范围内
of multiple ground and space-based access networks), requiring routing policy support for path selection. Finally, QoS path selection capabilities may be beneficial to arbitrate shared access or partition real-time control traffic from other data traffic.
对于多个地面和天基接入网络），需要路由策略支持路径选择。最后，QoS路径选择能力可能有助于仲裁共享访问或将实时控制流量与其他数据流量分开。
Initial prototype of ATN capabilities have been based on ISO IDRP [33] path selection and QoS routing policy. There was some discussion whether IDRP could be adopted for use in an IP environment. There was quick agreement that the preferred solution within the IETF would be to advance BGP4++ [8,54] as an IDRP-like replacement. This transitioned discussion to evaluation of ATN use of IDRP features and their equivalent to support in BGP. Several issues with BGP were raised for further investigation. For example, whether BGP AS space is sufficient to accommodate each aircraft as an AS? Also issues with mobility support; can BGP provide for dynamically changing peering as point of attachment changes, and alternative path selection policies based on current peerings? A significant amount of additional investigation is required to fully assess ATN usage of IDRP features, especially in the QoS area. These could lead to additional BGP requirements, for instance to effect different prioritization or path selection for aircraft control vs. passenger entertainment traffic.
ATN功能的初始原型基于ISO IDRP[33]路径选择和QoS路由策略。在IP环境中是否可以采用IDRP进行了一些讨论。很快就达成了共识，认为IETF内的首选解决方案是将BGP4++[8,54]作为类似IDRP的替代品进行升级。本次讨论过渡到评估ATN对IDRP功能的使用及其在BGP中的等效支持。提出了与BGP有关的几个问题，以供进一步调查。例如，BGP AS空间是否足以容纳每架飞机作为AS？还有流动性支持方面的问题；BGP是否可以在连接点更改时动态更改对等，以及基于当前对等的备选路径选择策略？需要进行大量的额外调查，以全面评估ATN对IDRP功能的使用情况，尤其是在QoS领域。这些可能导致额外的BGP要求，例如，对飞机控制和乘客娱乐交通影响不同的优先级或路径选择。
Enabling support for voice and other realtime services along with data capabilities requires Quality of Service (QoS) features to arbitrate access to the limited transmission resources in wireless environment. The wireless and mobile environment requires QoS support for the last leg between the mobile device and network access point, accommodating roaming and unique characteristics of the wireless link.
支持语音和其他实时服务以及数据功能需要服务质量（QoS）功能来仲裁对无线环境中有限传输资源的访问。无线和移动环境要求对移动设备和网络接入点之间的最后一段提供QoS支持，以适应漫游和无线链路的独特特性。
In addition to the discussion presented below, it was felt quite strongly that it is critical any QoS facility be provided as an underlying service independent of payload type. That is, there should be no built in knowledge of voice or other application semantics. This results in a feature that can be leveraged and easily extended to support new applications.
除了下面介绍的讨论之外，人们强烈认为，任何QoS设施都必须作为独立于有效负载类型的基础服务提供。也就是说，不应该有语音或其他应用程序语义的内置知识。这就产生了一个可以利用和轻松扩展以支持新应用程序的功能。
Discussion on voice over IP (VoIP) emphasized that (wireless) access link is typically the most constrained resource, and while contention access (CSMA) provides good utilization for data it is not ideal for voice. Two models were identified as potential solution in VoIP architecture. The first is to have the wireless device directly signal the local access router. A second alternative is to have the
关于IP语音（VoIP）的讨论强调，（无线）接入链路通常是最受限制的资源，而竞争接入（CSMA）提供了良好的数据利用率，但对语音来说并不理想。两个模型被确定为VoIP体系结构中的潜在解决方案。第一种是让无线设备直接向本地接入路由器发送信号。第二种选择是使用
call control element (SIP agent [30]) "program" the edge router. This tradeoff seemed to be an area open for additional investigation, especially given the complications that may be introduced in the face of mobility and roaming handoffs. This appears a key component to solve for success in VoIP adoption.
呼叫控制元件（SIP代理[30]）“编程”边缘路由器。这种权衡似乎是一个有待进一步研究的领域，特别是考虑到移动和漫游切换可能带来的复杂性。这似乎是VoIP采用成功的关键因素。
Work within the IEEE 802.11 WLAN group identified similar requirements for QoS support. That group is investigating a model employing two transmission queues, one for realtime and one for best-effort traffic. Additional plans include mapping between IP DiffServ markings [14,46] and IEEE 802 priorities.
IEEE 802.11 WLAN组内的工作确定了QoS支持的类似要求。该小组正在研究一种采用两个传输队列的模型，一个用于实时传输，另一个用于尽力而为传输。其他计划包括IP区分服务标记[14,46]和IEEE 802优先级之间的映射。
The statement was also made that QoS over the wireless link is not the fundamental problem, rather it is handling mobility aspects and seamless adaptation across handoffs without service disruption. There were concerns about mechanisms establishing per-flow state (RSVP [13]). Issues include scaling of state, and signaling overhead and setup delays on roaming events. DiffServ [9] approach allows allocating QoS for aggregate traffic class, which simplifies roaming. However, DiffServ requires measurement and allocation adjustment over time, and policing to limit amount of QoS traffic injected.
该声明还指出，无线链路上的QoS不是根本问题，而是在不中断服务的情况下处理移动性方面和跨切换的无缝适配。有人担心建立每流状态的机制（RSVP[13]）。问题包括状态的缩放，以及漫游事件的信令开销和设置延迟。DiffServ[9]方法允许为聚合流量类分配QoS，从而简化了漫游。然而，DiffServ需要随着时间的推移进行测量和分配调整，并进行监管以限制注入的QoS流量。
The HDR high speed wireless packet data system under development at Qualcomm highlights unique characteristics of some wireless media. This system provides users a channel rate between 38.4Kb/s and 2.4Mb/s, with throughput dependent on channel loading and distance from network access point. This gave rise to considerable discussion on whether it might be possible to discover and provide feedback to the application regarding current link or path QoS being received. This might enable some form of application adaptation.
高通公司正在开发的HDR高速无线分组数据系统突出了某些无线媒体的独特特性。该系统为用户提供38.4Kb/s到2.4Mb/s之间的信道速率，吞吐量取决于信道负载和与网络接入点的距离。这引起了关于是否可能发现并向应用程序提供有关当前链路或路径QoS的反馈的大量讨论。这可能会启用某种形式的应用程序自适应。
In the case of the HDR system it was indicated that no such feedback is currently available. Additionally, it was argued that this is in accord with the current Internet stack model, which does not provide any mechanisms to expose this type of information. Counter arguments stated that there are growing demands in Internet QoS working groups requesting exposure of this type of information via standardized APIs. Members working on GPRS protocols also indicated frustration in deploying QoS capabilities without exposure of this information. This clearly seemed a topic for further investigations.
在HDR系统的情况下，表明目前没有此类反馈。此外，有人认为，这与当前的Internet堆栈模型是一致的，该模型不提供任何机制来公开此类信息。反驳意见指出，互联网QoS工作组要求通过标准化API公开此类信息的需求日益增长。从事GPRS协议工作的成员还表示，在不公开这些信息的情况下部署QoS功能令人沮丧。这显然是一个有待进一步调查的话题。
A final area of discussion on QoS discovery focused on the question of how a server application might find out the capabilities of a receiver. This could allow for application adaptation to client device and path characteristics. One suggestion proposed use of RSVP payload, which is able to transport QoS information. A second
关于QoS发现的最后一个讨论领域集中在服务器应用程序如何发现接收器功能的问题上。这可以允许应用程序适应客户端设备和路径特征。一项建议提议使用RSVP有效负载，它能够传输QoS信息。一秒钟
alternative is to push capability exchange and negotiation to the application layer. Discussion on this topic was brief, as application issues were deemed outside the workshop charter, however this also seems an area open for future investigation.
另一种方法是将功能交换和协商推送到应用层。关于这一主题的讨论很简短，因为应用问题被认为不在研讨会章程范围内，但这似乎也是一个有待进一步研究的领域。
A critical deterrent to Internet protocol adoption in the highly band-width constrained wireless cellular environment is the bit overhead of the protocol encoding. Examples presented highlighted how a voice application (layered over IP [52,19], UDP [51], and RTP [57]) requires a minimum of 40 bytes of headers for IPv4 or 60 bytes for IPv6 before any application payload (e.g., 24 byte voice sample). This overhead was also presented as a contributing factor for the creation of WAP Wireless Datagram Protocol (WDP) rather than IP for very low datarate bearers.
在带宽高度受限的无线蜂窝环境中，协议编码的比特开销是阻止互联网协议采用的一个关键因素。示例强调了语音应用程序（IP[52,19]、UDP[51]和RTP[57]上分层）在任何应用程序负载（例如，24字节语音示例）之前，IPv4至少需要40字节的报头，IPv6至少需要60字节的报头。这一开销也被认为是创建WAP无线数据报协议（WDP）而非极低数据速率承载IP的一个促成因素。
Discussion on header compression techniques to alleviate these concerns focused on work being performed within the IETF Robust Header Compression (rohc) working group. This working group has established goals for wireless environment, to conserve radio spectrum, to accommodate mobility, and to be robust to packet loss both before the point where compression is applied and between compressor and decompressor. Additional requirements established were that the technique be transparent, does not introduce additional errors, and that it is compatible with common protocol layerings (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, RTP/UDP/IP, TCP/IP).
关于减轻这些担忧的报头压缩技术的讨论集中在IETF鲁棒报头压缩（rohc）工作组正在进行的工作上。该工作组制定了无线环境的目标，以节约无线电频谱，适应移动性，并在应用压缩之前以及在压缩器和解压器之间对数据包丢失具有鲁棒性。确定的其他要求是，该技术必须透明，不会引入额外的错误，并且与常见的协议分层（例如，IPv4、IPv6、RTP/UDP/IP、TCP/IP）兼容。
The primary observation was that this problem is now largely solved! The working group is currently evaluating the ROCCO [38] and ACE [42] protocols, and expects to finalize its recommendations in the near future. It was reported that these encodings have a minimum header of 1 byte and result in average overhead of less than 2 bytes for an RTP/UDP/IP packet. There is some extra overhead required if transport checksum is required and some issues still to be analyzed related to interoperation with encryption and tunneling.
主要的观察结果是这个问题现在已经基本解决了！工作组目前正在评估ROCCO[38]和ACE[42]协议，并期望在不久的将来最终确定其建议。据报道，这些编码的最小报头为1字节，导致RTP/UDP/IP数据包的平均开销小于2字节。如果需要传输校验和，则需要一些额外的开销，并且与加密和隧道的互操作相关的一些问题仍有待分析。
A detriment to IPv6 adoption often cited is its additional header overhead, primarily attributed to its larger address size. A secondary observation made was that it's believed that IPv6 accommodates greater header compression than IPv4. This was attributed to the elimination of the checksum and identification fields from the header.
经常提到的IPv6采用的一个不利因素是其额外的报头开销，这主要归因于其较大的地址大小。第二个观察结果是，人们认为IPv6比IPv4具有更大的报头压缩。这是由于从报头中删除了校验和和标识字段。
Discussion on use of WWW protocols over wireless highlighted protocol encodings as another potential detriment to their adoption. A number of alternatives were mentioned for investigation, including use of a "deflate" Content-Encoding, using compression with TLS [20], or
关于在无线网络上使用WWW协议的讨论突出了协议编码，这是对其采用的另一个潜在危害。研究中提到了许多备选方案，包括使用“deflate”内容编码，使用TLS压缩[20]，或
Bellovin's TCP filters. Observation was made that it could be beneficial to investigate more compact alternative encoding of the WWW protocols.
Bellovin的TCP过滤器。有人观察到，研究WWW协议更紧凑的替代编码可能是有益的。
IETF protocol developments have traditionally taken the approach of preferring simple encode/decode and word alignment at the cost of some extra bit transmissions. It was stated that optimizing protocol encoding for bit savings often leads to shortcomings or limitations on protocol evolution. However, it was also argued that environments where physical limitations have an effect on transmission capacity and system performance may present exceptions where optimized encodings are beneficial. Cellular wireless and near-space satellite may fall into this category.
IETF协议的发展传统上采取了更倾向于简单编码/解码和字对齐的方法，而代价是一些额外的位传输。有人指出，为节省比特而优化协议编码常常会导致协议进化上的缺点或限制。然而，也有人认为，物理限制对传输容量和系统性能有影响的环境可能会出现优化编码有益的例外情况。蜂窝无线和近空间卫星可能属于这一类。
The WAP protocols exhibit several examples where existing Internet protocols were felt to be too inefficient for adoption with very low datarate bearer services and limited capability devices. The WAP Wireless Session Protocol (WSP) is based on HTTPv1.1 [23], however WSP incorporates several changes to address perceived inefficiencies. WSP uses a more compact binary header encoding and optimizations for efficient connection and capability negotiation. Similarly, the WAP Wireless Application Environment (WAE) uses tokenized WML and a tag-based browser environment for more efficient operation.
WAP协议展示了几个例子，在这些例子中，人们认为现有的互联网协议对于采用非常低的数据速率承载服务和有限的设备来说效率太低。WAP无线会话协议（WSP）基于HTTPv1.1[23]，但是WSP包含了一些更改以解决感知的低效率问题。WSP使用更紧凑的二进制报头编码和优化来实现高效的连接和能力协商。类似地，WAP无线应用程序环境（WAE）使用标记化的WML和基于标记的浏览器环境来实现更高效的操作。
Additional requests for more efficient and compact protocol encodings, and especially improved capability negotiation were raised during discussion on usage of WWW protocols with wireless handheld devices.
在讨论无线手持设备使用WWW协议的过程中，还提出了对更高效和紧凑的协议编码，特别是改进能力协商的其他要求。
Finally, work within the near-space satellite environment has pointed out other physical limitations that can affect performance. In this case the long propagation delays can make "chatty" protocols highly inefficient and unbearable for interactive use. This environment could benefit from protocols that support some form of "pipelining" operation.
最后，在近空间卫星环境中开展的工作指出了可能影响性能的其他物理限制。在这种情况下，长时间的传播延迟会使“闲聊”协议变得非常低效，并且无法进行交互使用。这种环境可以受益于支持某种形式的“流水线”操作的协议。
There seemed broad agreement that many of these observations represent valid reasons to pursue optimization of protocol operations. Investigation of compact protocol encoding, capability negotiation, and minimizing or overlapping round trips to complete a transaction could all lead to improved application performance across a wide range of environments.
人们似乎普遍认为，这些观察结果中有许多是追求协议操作优化的正当理由。研究紧凑的协议编码、能力协商以及最小化或重叠完成事务的往返都可以在广泛的环境中提高应用程序性能。
Proxy agents are present in a number of the wireless and mobile architectures. They're often required to gateway between communication domains; terminate tunnel and translate between telephony system and Internet protocols (GPRS), or to escape the "walled garden" (WAP). In conjunction with limited capability handheld devices a proxy might be deployed to offload expensive processing such as public key operations, perform content filtering, or provide access to "backend" applications (e.g., email, calendar, database). In other cases the proxy may be required to work around protocol deployment limitations (e.g., NAT with limited IPv4 addresses).
代理存在于许多无线和移动架构中。它们通常需要在通信域之间建立网关；终止电话系统和互联网协议（GPRS）之间的隧道和转换，或逃离“围墙花园”（WAP）。结合功能有限的手持设备，可以部署一个代理来卸载昂贵的处理，如公钥操作、执行内容过滤或提供对“后端”应用程序（如电子邮件、日历、数据库）的访问。在其他情况下，可能需要代理绕过协议部署限制（例如，具有有限IPv4地址的NAT）。
The discussion on proxy agents primarily recognized that there are a range of proxy agent types. Proxies may operate by intercepting and interpreting protocol packets, or by hijacking or redirecting connections. Some types of proxy break the Internet end-to-end communication and security models. Other proxy architectures may limit system scalability due to state or performance constraints. There was some desire to conduct further study of proxy agent models to evaluate their effect on system operation.
关于代理的讨论主要认识到代理类型有一系列。代理可以通过截取和解释协议包，或通过劫持或重定向连接进行操作。某些类型的代理破坏了Internet端到端通信和安全模型。由于状态或性能限制，其他代理架构可能会限制系统的可伸缩性。有人希望对代理模型进行进一步研究，以评估其对系统运行的影响。
Projections were presented claiming 1200 million cellular (voice) subscribers, 600 million wired stations on the Internet, and over 600 million wireless data ("web handset") users by the year 2004. Right up front there was caution about these projections, especially the wireless data since it is highly speculative with little history. Secondly, there was some doubt regarding potential for significant revenues from user base over 1 billion subscribers; this may be pushing the limits of world population with sufficient disposable income to afford these devices. However, there was broad consensus that cellular and Internet services are going to continue rapid growth and that wireless data terminals have potential to form a significant component of the total Internet. These conclusions seemed to form the basis for many additional recommendations to push for adoption of IPv6 protocols in emerging (3G) markets.
据预测，到2004年，将有12亿手机（语音）用户、6亿互联网有线电台和6亿多无线数据（“网络手机”）用户。就在前面，人们对这些预测持谨慎态度，尤其是无线数据，因为它是高度推测性的，几乎没有历史记录。第二，对于用户群超过10亿用户的巨大收入潜力存在一些疑问；这可能会使拥有足够可支配收入的世界人口达到购买这些设备的极限。然而，人们普遍认为，蜂窝和互联网服务将继续快速增长，无线数据终端有潜力成为整个互联网的重要组成部分。这些结论似乎构成了许多其他建议的基础，以推动在新兴（3G）市场采用IPv6协议。
In nearly all the presentations on 3G cellular network technologies discussion on scaling to support the projected large number of wireless data users resulted in strong advocacy by the Internet representatives for adoption of IPv6 protocols. There were some positive signs that groups have begun investigation into IPv6. For example, 3GPP has already defined IPv6 as an option in their 1998 and 1999 specifications (release R98 and R99), and are considering
在几乎所有关于3G蜂窝网络技术的演讲中，关于扩展以支持预计的大量无线数据用户的讨论导致互联网代表大力倡导采用IPv6协议。有一些积极的迹象表明，一些组织已经开始调查IPv6。例如，3GPP已经在其1998年和1999年的规范（版本R98和R99）中将IPv6定义为一个选项，并且正在考虑
specifying IPv6 as mandatory in the release 2000. The MWIF effort is also cognizant of IPv4 and IPv6 issues and is currently wrestling with their recommendations in this area.
在2000版中将IPv6指定为必需的。MWIF也意识到了IPv4和IPv6问题，目前正在努力解决这方面的建议。
Although there was limited positive signs on IPv6 awareness, indication is that there are long fights ahead to gain consensus for IPv6 adoption in any of the 3G standards efforts. There was considerable feedback that the telephony carriers perceive IPv6 as more difficult to deploy, results in higher infrastructure equipment expenses, and adds difficulty in interoperation and gatewaying to the current (IPv4) Internet. Arguments for sticking with IPv4 primarily came down to the abundance and lower pricing of IPv4-based products, and secondary argument of risk aversion; there is currently minimal IPv6 deployment or operational experience and expertise, and the carriers do not want to drive development of this expertise. Finally, some groups argue IPv4 is sufficient for "walled garden" use, using IPv4 private address space (i.e., the "net 10" solution).
尽管IPv6意识方面的积极迹象有限，但有迹象表明，要在任何3G标准努力中达成IPv6采用共识，还有很长的路要走。大量反馈表明，电话运营商认为IPv6更难部署，导致基础设施设备费用增加，并增加了互操作和与当前（IPv4）互联网的网关连接的难度。坚持使用IPv4的理由主要是基于IPv4的产品的丰富性和较低的价格，其次是风险规避；目前，IPv6部署或运营经验和专业知识很少，运营商不希望推动这种专业知识的发展。最后，一些团体认为IPv4足以使用IPv4专用地址空间（即“Net10”解决方案），满足“围墙花园”的使用。
One other area of concern regarding IPv6 usage is perceived memory and processing overhead and its effect on small, limited capability devices. This was primarily directed at IPv6 requirement for IPsec implementation to claim conformance. Arguments that continued increase in device capacity will obviate these concerns were rejected. It was stated that power constraints on these low-end devices will continue to force concerns on memory and processing overhead, and impact introduction of other features. There was no conclusion on whether IPsec could be made optional for these devices, or the effect if these devices were "non-compliant".
关于IPv6使用的另一个关注领域是感知内存和处理开销及其对小型、有限容量设备的影响。这主要是针对IPsec实现的IPv6要求，以声明一致性。继续增加设备容量将消除这些担忧的观点被驳回。据指出，这些低端设备的电源限制将继续迫使人们关注内存和处理开销，并影响其他功能的引入。对于这些设备是否可以选择IPsec，或者如果这些设备“不兼容”会产生什么影响，目前还没有定论。
Emerging 3G cellular networks appear ideal environment for IPv6 introduction. IPv6 addresses scaling requirements of wireless data user projections and eliminates continued cobbling of systems employing (IPv4) private address space and NAT. This appears an area for IAB and Internet community to take a strong stance advocating adoption of IPv6 as the various 3G forums wrestle with their recommendations.
新兴的3G蜂窝网络似乎是IPv6引入的理想环境。IPv6解决了无线数据用户预测的扩展需求，并消除了采用（IPv4）专用地址空间和NAT的系统的持续拼凑。这似乎是IAB和互联网社区采取强硬立场支持采用IPv6的一个领域，因为各种3G论坛都在努力争取他们的建议。
Discussion on signaling focused on call setup and control functions, and the effects of mobility. The 3G.IP group has investigated standardizing on either H.323 [32] or SIP [30]. Currently support seems to be split between the protocols, and neither seemed ideal without support for mobility. During discussion on VoIP it was presented that SIP does support mobility, with graceful handling of mobile handoff, updating location information with remote peer, and even simultaneous handoff of both endpoints. The problem with SIP adoption seems to be its slow standardization brought about by
关于信令的讨论集中在呼叫设置和控制功能，以及移动性的影响。3G.IP小组已经调查了H.323[32]或SIP[30]的标准化。目前，两种协议的支持似乎有所不同，如果不支持移动性，这两种协议都不理想。在关于VoIP的讨论中，有人提出SIP确实支持移动性，能够优雅地处理移动切换、与远程对等方更新位置信息，甚至支持两个端点的同时切换。SIP采用的问题似乎是其缓慢的标准化带来的
focusing on the harder multicast model rather than expediting definition of a unicast "profile". There seems great need for IETF to expedite finalization of SIP, however some argued at this point it's likely many products will need to develop support for both SIP and H.323, and for their interoperation.
关注较难的多播模型，而不是加快单播“配置文件”的定义。IETF似乎非常需要加快SIP的最终确定，但是一些人认为，在这一点上，许多产品可能需要开发对SIP和H.323以及它们的互操作的支持。
A short discussion was also raised on whether it is the correct model to incorporate the additional protocol mechanisms to accommodate mobility into the SIP signaling. An alternative model might be to build on top of the existing mobile IP handoff facilities. There was no conclusion reached, however it seemed an area for further investigation.
还就是否将附加协议机制纳入SIP信令以适应移动性的正确模型进行了简短的讨论。另一种模式可能是在现有移动IP切换设施的基础上构建。目前尚未得出结论，但这似乎是一个有待进一步调查的领域。
3.12 Discussion on Interactions Between IETF and Other Standards Organizations
3.12 IETF与其他标准组织之间的互动讨论
There were many examples where non-IETF standards organizations would like to directly adopt IETF standards to enable Internet (or similar) services. For example IEEE 802.11 WLAN relies on adoption of IETF standards for mobile IP, end-to-end security, and AAA services. 3GPP is looking into the IETF work on header compression. WAPF derived its transport, security, and application environment from Internet protocols. At first glance these would seem successes for adoption of Internet technologies, however the decision to rely on IETF standards often introduced frustrations too.
有许多非IETF标准组织希望直接采用IETF标准以实现互联网（或类似）服务的例子。例如，IEEE 802.11 WLAN依赖于移动IP、端到端安全和AAA服务采用IETF标准。3GPP正在研究IETF在头压缩方面的工作。WAPF的传输、安全和应用环境来自互联网协议。乍一看，采用互联网技术似乎取得了成功，但依赖IETF标准的决定也常常带来挫折。
One common theme for frustration is differences in standardization procedures. For instance, 3GPP follows a strict model of publishing recommendations yearly; any feature that cannot be finalized must be dropped. On the other hand the IETF working groups have much less formalized schedules, and in fact often seem to ignore published milestone dates. This has led to a common perception within other standards organizations that the IETF cannot deliver [on time].
挫折感的一个共同主题是标准化程序的差异。例如，3GPP遵循每年发布推荐的严格模式；任何无法最终确定的功能都必须删除。另一方面，IETF工作组的日程安排形式化程度要低得多，事实上通常似乎忽略了发布的里程碑日期。这导致其他标准组织内部普遍认为IETF无法[按时]交付。
A second area identified where IETF differs from other organizations is in publication of "system profile". For example defining interoperation of IPsec, QoS for VoIP and video conferencing, and billing as a "service". Wading through all the protocol specifications, deciding on optional features and piecing together the components to deliver a commercial quality service takes considerable expertise.
IETF与其他组织不同的第二个领域是“系统概要文件”。例如，定义IPsec的互操作、VoIP和视频会议的QoS以及作为“服务”计费。浏览所有协议规范、决定可选功能并将组件拼接在一起以提供商业质量的服务需要相当多的专业知识。
Thirdly, there was often confusion about how to get involved in IETF standards effort, submit requirements, and get delivery commitments. Many people seem unaware and surprised at how open and simple it is to join in IETF standardization via working group meetings and mailing list.
第三，在如何参与IETF标准工作、提交需求和获得交付承诺方面，常常存在困惑。许多人似乎不知道通过工作组会议和邮件列表加入IETF标准化是多么的开放和简单，他们对此感到惊讶。
There wasn't really a large amount of discussions on ways to address these differences in standards practices. However, it did seem beneficial to understand these concerns and frustrations. It seemed clear there can be some benefits in improving communication with other standards organizations and encouraging their participation in IETF activities.
对于如何解决标准实践中的这些差异，并没有进行过大量的讨论。然而，理解这些担忧和挫折似乎是有益的。显然，改善与其他标准组织的沟通并鼓励他们参与IETF活动可能会带来一些好处。
4 Recommendations
4建议
The IAB wireless workshop provided a forum for those in the Internet research community and in the wireless and telephony community to meet, exchange information, and discuss current activities on using Internet technology in wireless environments. However the primary goal from the perspective of the IAB was to reach some understanding on any problems, both technical or perceived deficiencies, deterring the adoption of Internet protocols in this arena. This section documents recommendations of the workshop on actions by the IAB and IESG, IRTF research efforts, and protocol development actions for the IETF to address these current deficiencies and foster wider acceptance of Internet technologies.
IAB无线研讨会为互联网研究社区以及无线和电话社区的人员提供了一个论坛，以会面、交换信息并讨论在无线环境中使用互联网技术的当前活动。然而，从IAB的角度来看，主要目标是对任何阻碍互联网协议在这一领域采用的问题，包括技术或感知缺陷，达成一些理解。本节记录了关于IAB和IESG行动、IRTF研究工作和IETF协议开发行动的研讨会的建议，以解决这些当前的缺陷，促进互联网技术的广泛接受。
4.1 Recommendations on Fostering Interaction with Non-Internet Standards Organizations
4.1 关于促进与非互联网标准组织互动的建议
A clear consensus of the workshop is that dialog needs to be improved. The Internet community should attempt to foster communication with other standards bodies, including WAPF, MWIF, 3GPP, 3G.IP, etc. The goal is to "understand each others problems", provide for requirements input, and greater visibility into the standardization process.
研讨会的一个明确共识是，对话需要改进。互联网社区应尝试促进与其他标准机构的沟通，包括WAPF、MWIF、3GPP、3G.IP等。目标是“了解彼此的问题”，提供需求输入，并提高标准化过程的可视性。
4.1.1
4.1.1
It was recommended to take a pragmatic approach rather than formalizing liaison agreements. The formalized liaison model is counter to the established Internet standards process, is difficult to manage, and has met with very limited success in previous trials. Instead, any relevant IETF working group should be strongly encouraged to consider and recommend potential liaison requirements within their charter.
有人建议采取务实的做法，而不是将联络协议正式化。正式的联络模式与既定的互联网标准程序背道而驰，难以管理，在以前的试验中取得的成功非常有限。相反，应强烈鼓励任何有关IETF工作组在其章程中考虑并建议潜在的联络要求。
4.1.2
4.1.2
It was recommended to avoid formation of jointly sponsored working groups and standards. Once again this has shown limited success in the past. The preferred mode of operation is to maintain separate standards organizations but to encourage attendance and participation of external experts within IETF proceedings and to avoid overlap.
建议避免成立联合主办的工作组和标准。这再次表明，过去的成功有限。首选的操作模式是维持独立的标准组织，但鼓励外部专家参与IETF程序，并避免重叠。
An exception to this style of partitioning meeting sponsorship is less formal activities, such as BOFs. It was recommended that sponsoring joint BOF could be beneficial. These could enable assembly of experts from multiple domains early in the process of exploring new topics for future standards activities.
这种划分会议赞助方式的一个例外是不太正式的活动，如BOF。有人建议，赞助联合BOF可能是有益的。这可以使来自多个领域的专家在探索未来标准活动新主题的过程中尽早集合起来。
4.1.3
4.1.3
A principle goal of fostering communication with other standards organizations is mutual education. To help in achieving this goal recommendations were made related to documenting more of the history behind Internet standards and also in coordinating document reviews.
促进与其他标准组织沟通的主要目标是相互教育。为了帮助实现这一目标，提出了与记录更多互联网标准背后的历史以及协调文件审查相关的建议。
It was recommended that IETF standards groups be encouraged to create or more formally document the reasons behind algorithm selection and design choices. Currently much of the protocol design history is difficult to extract, in the form of working group mail archives or presentations. Creation of these documents could form the basis to educate newcomers into the "history" and wisdom behind the protocols.
建议鼓励IETF标准组创建或更正式地记录算法选择和设计选择背后的原因。目前，许多协议设计历史难以以工作组邮件存档或演示的形式提取。创建这些文件可以成为教育新来者了解协议背后的“历史”和智慧的基础。
It was recommended that mutual document reviews should be encouraged. This helps to disseminate information on current standards activities and provides an opportunity for external expert feedback. A critical hurdle that could severely limit the effectiveness of this type of activity is the intellectual property and distribution restrictions some groups place on their standards and working documents.
建议鼓励相互审查文件。这有助于传播关于当前标准活动的信息，并为外部专家反馈提供机会。可能严重限制这类活动有效性的一个关键障碍是一些团体对其标准和工作文件的知识产权和分发限制。
There are several perceived benefits to the "walled garden" (captive customer) model, similar to current deployment of "intranets". These range from simplified user security to "captive customer" economic models. There was disagreement on the extent this deployment model might be perpetuated in the future. However it is important to recognize this model exists and to make a conscious decision on how to accommodate it and how it will affect protocol design.
“围墙花园”（俘虏客户）模式有几个明显的好处，类似于当前部署的“内部网”。从简化的用户安全性到“俘虏客户”经济模型，都有。对于这种部署模式在未来可能持续的程度存在分歧。然而，重要的是要认识到这个模型的存在，并有意识地决定如何适应它以及它将如何影响协议设计。
4.2.1
4.2.1
It was strongly recommended that independent of the ubiquity of the "walled garden" deployment scenario that protocols and architectural decisions should not target this model. To continue the success of Internet protocols at operating across a highly diverse and heterogeneous environment the IETF must continue to foster the adoption of an "open model". IETF protocol design must address seamless, secure, and scalable access.
强烈建议，与“围墙花园”部署场景的普遍性无关，协议和体系结构决策不应针对此模型。为了在高度多样化和异构的环境中继续成功运行互联网协议，IETF必须继续促进采用“开放模式”。IETF协议设计必须解决无缝、安全和可扩展的访问。
4.2.2
4.2.2
Recognition that the "walled garden" model has some perceived benefits led to recommendations to better integrate it into the Internet architecture. These focused on service location and escape from the "walled garden".
认识到“围墙花园”模式有一些可感知的好处，因此建议将其更好地集成到互联网架构中。这些重点是服务地点和逃离“围墙花园”。
It was recommended to investigate standard protocols for service and proxy discovery within the "walled garden" domain. There are already a number of candidate mechanisms, including static preconfiguration, DNS [22,27,44,45], BOOTP [18], DHCP [21], SLP [28], and others. Specific recommendations on use of these protocols in this environment can help foster common discovery methods across a range of access devices and ease configuration complexity.
建议调查“围墙花园”域内服务和代理发现的标准协议。已经有许多候选机制，包括静态预配置、DNS[22,27,44,45]、BOOTP[18]、DHCP[21]、SLP[28]等。在此环境中使用这些协议的具体建议有助于在一系列访问设备中培养通用的发现方法，并减轻配置复杂性。
It was recommended to investigate standard methods to transport through the garden wall (e.g., escape to the Internet). It seemed clear that a better model is required than trying to map all access over a HTTP [23] transport connection gateway. One suggestion was to propose use of IP!
建议调查通过花园围墙运输的标准方法（例如，逃逸到互联网）。显然，需要一个更好的模型，而不是试图通过HTTP[23]传输连接网关映射所有访问。一个建议是建议使用IP！
Wireless operators are projecting supporting on the order of 10's to 100's million users on their Internet-based services. Supporting this magnitude of users could have severe scaling implications on use of the dwindling IPv4 address space.
无线运营商正计划为其基于互联网的服务提供约1000万至1亿用户的支持。支持如此数量的用户可能会对日益减少的IPv4地址空间的使用产生严重的扩展影响。
4.3.1
4.3.1
There was clear consensus that any IPv4-based model relying on traditional stateless NAT technology [60] is to be strongly discouraged. NAT has several inherent faults, including breaking the Internet peer-to-peer communication model, breaking end-to-end security, and stifling deployment of new services [16,29,31]. In addition, the state and performance implications of supporting 10's to 100's million users is cost and technologically prohibitive.
大家一致认为，强烈反对任何依赖传统无状态NAT技术的基于IPv4的模式[60]。NAT有几个固有的缺陷，包括破坏互联网点对点通信模型、破坏端到端安全性以及阻碍新服务的部署[16,29,31]。此外，支持1000万到1亿用户所带来的状态和性能影响在成本和技术上都令人望而却步。
4.3.2
4.3.2
Realm specific IP (RSIP) [10,11] has potential to restore the end-to-end communication model in the IPv4 Internet, broken by traditional NAT. However there was considerable reluctance to formally recommend this as the long term solution. Detriments to its adoption include that the protocol is still being researched and defined, and potential interactions with applications, QoS features, and security remain. In addition, added signaling, state, and tunneling has cost and may be technologically prohibitive scaling.
领域特定IP（RSIP）[10,11]有可能恢复IPv4互联网中被传统NAT打破的端到端通信模式。然而，有相当多的人不愿意正式建议将其作为长期解决办法。其采用的不利因素包括协议仍在研究和定义中，与应用程序、QoS功能和安全性的潜在交互仍然存在。此外，增加的信令、状态和隧道传输具有成本，并且在技术上可能无法扩展。
4.3.3
4.3.3
The clear consensus of the workshop was to recommend adoption of an IPv6-based solution to support these services requiring large scaling. Adoption of IPv6 will aid in restoring the Internet end-to-end communication model and eliminates some roaming issues. Adoption of IPv6 in this marketspace could also help spur development of IPv6 products and applications, and hasten transition of the Internet. It was recognized that some application gateways are required during transition of the IPv4 Internet, however it was felt that the scaling and roaming benefits outweighed these issues.
研讨会的明确共识是建议采用基于IPv6的解决方案来支持这些需要大规模扩展的服务。采用IPv6将有助于恢复Internet端到端通信模式，并消除一些漫游问题。在这个市场上采用IPv6也有助于刺激IPv6产品和应用程序的发展，并加速互联网的转型。人们认识到，在IPv4互联网过渡期间需要一些应用网关，但认为扩展和漫游的好处超过了这些问题。
4.3.4
4.3.4
It was recommended that an effort be made to eliminate any requirement for NAT in an IPv6 Internet. The IAB believes that the IPv6 address space is large enough to preclude any requirement for private address allocation [55] or address translation due to address space shortage [15]. Therefore, accomplishing this should primarily require installing and enforcing proper address allocation policy on registry and service providers. It was recommended to establish policies requiring service providers to allocate a sufficient quantity of global addresses for a sites use. The feeling was that NAT should be easily eliminated provided efficient strategies are defined to address renumbering [17,62] and mobility [37] issues.
建议努力消除IPv6 Internet中对NAT的任何要求。IAB认为IPv6地址空间足够大，可以排除因地址空间不足而导致的任何私有地址分配[55]或地址转换要求[15]。因此，实现这一点主要需要在注册表和服务提供商上安装和实施适当的地址分配策略。建议制定政策，要求服务提供商为站点使用分配足够数量的全局地址。当时的感觉是，如果定义了有效的策略来解决重新编号[17,62]和移动性[37]问题，NAT应该很容易被消除。
An inherent characteristic of wireless systems is their potential for accommodating device roaming and mobility. Scalable and efficient support of this mobility within Internet protocols can aid in pushing native IP services out to the mobile devices.
无线系统的一个固有特征是其适应设备漫游和移动的潜力。在互联网协议中对这种移动性的可扩展且高效的支持有助于将本机IP服务推出到移动设备。
4.4.1
4.4.1
Several limitations were identified relating to current specification of mobile IPv4 [48]. Primary among these limitations is that mechanisms to support redundant home agents and failover are not currently defined. Redundant home agents are required to avoid single point of failure, which would require (proprietary) extensions. Additional deficiencies related to lack of route optimization, and tunneling and path MTU issues were also identified. Due to these limitations there was reluctance to recommend this as a solution.
确定了与当前移动IPv4规范相关的若干限制[48]。这些限制中的主要限制是，目前尚未定义支持冗余主代理和故障切换的机制。需要冗余的家庭代理来避免单点故障，这将需要（专有）扩展。此外，还发现了与缺乏路线优化、隧道和路径MTU问题相关的其他缺陷。由于这些限制，不愿意将其作为解决方案推荐。
4.4.2
4.4.2
It was recommended to encourage adoption of IPv6 mobility extensions [37] to support roaming capabilities in the wireless environment. IP mobility over IPv6 incorporates improvements to address several limitations of the IPv4-based mobility. The ability to use autoconfiguration for "care of" address improves robustness and efficiency. Additionally, path MTU is more easily adapted when a router forwards to a new "care of" address.
建议鼓励采用IPv6移动扩展[37]，以支持无线环境中的漫游功能。IPv6上的IP移动性结合了一些改进，以解决基于IPv4的移动性的几个限制。对“转交”地址使用自动配置的能力提高了健壮性和效率。此外，当路由器转发到新的“转交”地址时，路径MTU更容易调整。
Building wireless roaming atop IPv6-based mobility may introduce IPv4/IPv6 transition issues unique to the mobile environment. It was recommended to add investigation of these issues to the charter of the existing IETF Next Generation Transition (ngtrans) working group, provided any mobile IP interoperation issues be identified.
在基于IPv6的移动上构建无线漫游可能会带来移动环境特有的IPv4/IPv6转换问题。建议在现有IETF下一代过渡（ngtrans）工作组章程中增加对这些问题的调查，前提是确定任何移动IP互操作问题。
4.4.3
4.4.3
Scalable and widespread authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) services are critical to the deployment of commercial services based on (wireless) mobile IP. Some work is progressing on definition of these standards for IP mobility [26,49]. However, due to the pivotal role of these protocols on the ability to deploy commercial services, it was recommended to make finalization of these AAA standards and investigation of AAA scalability as high priorities.
可扩展和广泛使用的身份验证、授权和计费（AAA）服务对于部署基于（无线）移动IP的商业服务至关重要。关于这些IP移动性标准的定义，一些工作正在取得进展[26,49]。然而，由于这些协议对部署商业服务的能力起着关键作用，建议将这些AAA标准的最终确定和AAA可伸缩性的调查作为高度优先事项。
The wireless environment and applications place additional requirements on transport protocol. Unique link error and performance characteristics, and application sensitivity to connection setup and transaction semantics has led to "optimized" transports specific to each environment. These new transports often lack robustness found in Internet transport and place barriers to seamless gatewaying to the Internet. It was felt that better education on transport design and cooperation on Internet transport evolution could lead to significant improvements.
无线环境和应用对传输协议提出了额外的要求。独特的链路错误和性能特征，以及应用程序对连接设置和事务语义的敏感性，导致了针对每个环境的“优化”传输。这些新的传输通常缺乏在互联网传输中发现的健壮性，并对无缝接入互联网设置了障碍。有人认为，更好地开展交通设计教育和互联网交通发展方面的合作可以带来重大改进。
4.5.1
4.5.1
It was recommended that the IETF Transport Area (tsv) working group document why Internet transport protocols are the way they are. The focus should be on generic transport issues and mechanisms, rather than TCP specifics. This should capture usage and tradeoffs in design of specific transport mechanisms (e.g., connection
建议IETF传输区（tsv）工作组记录为什么互联网传输协议是这样的。重点应该放在通用的传输问题和机制上，而不是TCP细节。这应该捕获特定传输机制（例如，连接）设计中的使用和权衡
establishment, congestion control, loss recovery strategies, etc.), and document some of the history behind transport research in the Internet.
建立、拥塞控制、丢失恢复策略等），并记录互联网交通研究背后的一些历史。
This "entry point" document into transport design is in direct support of the recommendations in section 4.1 to foster communication and mutual education. In addition it was deemed critical that the Internet community make it very clear that congestion control is not optional. Internet researchers have learned that optimizing for a single link or homogeneous environment does not scale. Early work by Jacobson [34,35], standardization of TCP congestion control [5], and continuing work within the IETF Endpoint Congestion Management (ecm) working group could provide excellent basis for education of wireless transport designers.
本交通设计“入口点”文件直接支持第4.1节中的建议，以促进沟通和相互教育。此外，互联网社区必须明确指出，拥塞控制不是可选的。互联网研究人员已经了解到，针对单个链接或同质环境的优化不会扩展。Jacobson[34,35]的早期工作、TCP拥塞控制的标准化[5]以及IETF端点拥塞管理（ecm）工作组内的持续工作可以为无线传输设计师的教育提供良好的基础。
4.5.2
4.5.2
It was recommended that the IETF actively solicit input from external standards bodies on identifying explicit requirements and in assessing inefficiencies in existing transports in support of cellular and wireless environments. This has proven highly effective in identifying research topics and in guiding protocol evolution to address new operational environments, for instance in cooperation with groups doing satellite-based internetworking [4,6].
建议IETF积极征求外部标准机构的意见，以确定明确的要求，并评估现有传输中支持蜂窝和无线环境的低效性。事实证明，这在确定研究主题和指导协议演变以应对新的运营环境方面非常有效，例如与进行卫星互联的团队合作[4,6]。
4.5.3
4.5.3
It was recommended that the IAB make wireless standards bodies aware of the existence, and get them active in, the IETF Transport Area (tsv) working group. This transport "catch all" could provide an excellent forum for workers outside the Internet community to propose ideas and requirements, and engage in dialog with IESG members prior to contributing any formal proposal into the IETF or incurring overhead of working group formation.
建议IAB让无线标准机构意识到IETF传输区域（tsv）工作组的存在，并让他们积极参与。这种“一应俱全”的传输方式可以为互联网社区之外的工作人员提供一个极好的论坛，让他们提出想法和要求，并在向IETF提交任何正式提案或产生工作组组建开销之前，与IESG成员进行对话。
4.5.4
4.5.4
Mobile radio environments may often be subject to frequent temporary outages. For example, roaming through an area that is out of range of any base station, or disruptions due to base station handoffs. This violation of the congestive loss assumption of TCP can have severe detrimental effect on transport performance. It was recommended to investigate mechanisms for improving transport performance when these non-congestive loss can be detected. Areas for potential research identified include incorporation of "hints" to the sender providing Non-Congestive Loss Indication (NCLI) or stimulating transmission after link recovery via Source Encourage
移动无线电环境经常会出现频繁的临时中断。例如，在任何基站范围之外的区域漫游，或由于基站切换而中断。这种违反TCP拥塞丢失假设的行为会对传输性能产生严重的不利影响。有人建议，当可以检测到这些非充血性损失时，研究改善运输性能的机制。确定的潜在研究领域包括向发送方提供“提示”，以提供非充血性丢失指示（NCLI）或通过源节点刺激链路恢复后的传输
(SE) message [39]. This likely falls to the auspice of the IETF Performance Implications of Link Characteristics (pilc) working group.
（SE）信息[39]。这可能是IETF链路特性性能影响（pilc）工作组的原因。
4.5.5
4.5.5
Many wireless applications require transaction semantics and are highly sensitive to connection establishment delays (e.g., WAP). However, it is still desirable to efficiently support streaming of large bulk transfers too. It was recommended to investigate tradeoffs in supporting these transaction and streaming connections. Potential areas for investigation include tradeoffs between minimal transaction transport and potential security and denial of service (DoS) attacks, mechanisms to piggyback data during connection establishment to eliminate round trip delays, or ways for endpoints to cooperate in eliminating setup handshake for simple transactions while providing switch-over to reliable streaming for bulk transfers.
许多无线应用程序需要事务语义，并且对连接建立延迟（例如WAP）高度敏感。然而，仍然需要有效地支持大容量传输的流。建议调查在支持这些事务和流连接方面的权衡。潜在的调查领域包括最小事务传输与潜在的安全和拒绝服务（DoS）攻击之间的权衡，在建立连接期间利用数据消除往返延迟的机制，或者，端点可以合作消除简单事务的设置握手，同时为批量传输提供可靠流的切换。
4.5.6
4.5.6
It was recommended to look at (TCP) transport improvements specific to the wireless and mobile environment. An example is to investigate reattachable transport endpoints. This could allow for graceful recovery of a transport connection after a roaming or mobility event results in changes to one or both endpoint identifiers. Another area for potential investigation is to develop targeted uses of D-SACK [25]. D-SACK provides additional robustness to reordered packets, which may prove beneficial in wireless environment where packets are occasionally corrupted. Higher performance may be attainable by eliminating requirements on link-level retransmission maintaining in-order delivery within a flow.
建议查看针对无线和移动环境的（TCP）传输改进。例如，研究可重新连接的传输端点。这可以允许在漫游或移动事件导致一个或两个端点标识符发生更改后，正常恢复传输连接。另一个潜在调查领域是开发D-SACK的定向用途[25]。D-SACK为重新排序的数据包提供了额外的健壮性，这在数据包偶尔损坏的无线环境中可能是有益的。通过消除链路级重传的要求，可以实现更高的性能，以保持流内的有序交付。
Unique routing requirements may be introduced in support of wireless systems, especially when viewing the mobile component as an autonomous system (AS).
在支持无线系统时，特别是在将移动组件视为自治系统（as）时，可能引入独特的路由要求。
4.6.1
4.6.1
It was recommended that the IETF Routing Area commence investigation of extensions to the BGP protocol [54] to support additional policy features available within the ISO IDRP protocol [33]. The range of policy control desired includes adopting different identity or policies based on current point of attachment, and providing flexibility in path selection based on local policy and/or current
建议IETF路由区域开始调查BGP协议[54]的扩展，以支持ISO IDRP协议[33]中可用的其他策略功能。所需的策略控制范围包括基于当前连接点采用不同的身份或策略，以及基于本地策略和/或当前连接点提供路径选择的灵活性
peer policy. These features could be used for instance in support of requirements established in the Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN).
同侪政策。例如，这些功能可用于支持航空电信网络（ATN）中建立的需求。
4.6.2
4.6.2
It was recommended that the IETF Routing Area commence investigation of extensions to the BGP protocol [54] to support additional QoS/TOS path selection features available within the ISO IDRP protocol [33]. The range of policies include differentiating service level or path selection based on traffic classes. An example, based on Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) requirements, might be differentiating path selection and service between airline control and passenger entertainment traffic.
建议IETF路由区域开始研究BGP协议[54]的扩展，以支持ISO IDRP协议[33]中提供的额外QoS/TOS路径选择功能。策略范围包括根据流量类别区分服务级别或路径选择。例如，基于航空电信网络（ATN）要求，可能会区分航线控制和乘客娱乐交通之间的路径选择和服务。
Wireless link bandwidth is often scarce (e.g., cellular) and/or shared (e.g., IEEE 802.11 WLAN). Meeting application QoS needs requires accommodating these link characteristic, in addition to the roaming nature of mobile host. Specialized support may be required from the network layer to meet both link and end-to-end performance constraints.
无线链路带宽通常很少（例如，蜂窝式）和/或共享（例如，IEEE 802.11 WLAN）。除了移动主机的漫游特性外，满足应用程序QoS需求还需要适应这些链路特性。网络层可能需要专门的支持，以满足链路和端到端性能约束。
4.7.1
4.7.1
It was recommended that the IETF Transport Area undertake investigation into providing QoS in the last leg of mobile systems. That is, between the mobile device and the network access point. This type of QoS support might be appropriate where the wireless link is the most constrained resource. A potential solution to investigate is to employ an explicit reservation mechanism between the mobile host and the access point (e.g., RSVP [13]), while relying on resource provisioning or more scalable DiffServ [9] technologies within the core.
建议IETF传输区对移动系统的最后一段提供QoS进行调查。即，在移动设备和网络接入点之间。这种类型的QoS支持可能适用于无线链路是最受约束的资源的情况。需要研究的一个潜在解决方案是在移动主机和接入点（例如，RSVP[13]）之间采用显式保留机制，同时依靠核心内的资源供应或更具可扩展性的区分服务[9]技术。
4.7.2
4.7.2
It was recommended that the IETF Transport Area undertake investigation into end-to-end QoS when the path includes a mixture of wireless and wired technologies. This investigation could focus on mechanism to communicate QoS characteristics in cellular network to the core network to establish end-to-end QoS guarantees. An alternative investigation is to look into discovery problem of assessing current end-to-end performance characteristics, enabling for dynamic adaptation by mobile host.
当路径包括无线和有线技术的混合时，建议IETF传输区对端到端QoS进行调查。本研究的重点可以放在将蜂窝网络中的QoS特性传输到核心网络以建立端到端QoS保证的机制上。另一种调查方法是研究评估当前端到端性能特征的发现问题，从而实现移动主机的动态适应。
In a mobile environment with roaming, and mobile host disconnect and reconnect at different attachment point it may be desirable to recover an incomplete application session. It was recommended that the IRTF investigate application mobility at this level. The goal is to achieve a smooth recovery after a disconnect period; something more graceful than a "redial". Currently there does not appear to be sufficient information available within the network stack, this may require instantiation of some form of "session" layer.
在具有漫游和移动主机在不同连接点断开和重新连接的移动环境中，可能需要恢复不完整的应用程序会话。建议IRTF在此级别调查应用程序移动性。目标是在中断一段时间后实现平稳复苏；比“重拨”更优雅的东西。目前，网络堆栈中似乎没有足够的可用信息，这可能需要实例化某种形式的“会话”层。
4.9 Recommendations on TCP/IP Performance Characterization in WAP-like Environment
4.9 关于类WAP环境中TCP/IP性能表征的建议
WAPF has gone to considerable effort to develop unique transport protocol and optimizations due to perception that TCP/IP protocol stack is too expensive. Much of this was predicated on WAP requirements to support very low datarate bearer services. It was recommended that members of the IRTF evaluate TCP/IP stack performance in WAP-like environment to quantify its behavior and applicability. The focus should include investigation of code and memory space requirements, as well as link usage to complete a single transaction for current WAP protocols and for both IPv4 and IPv6. This work should result in better characterization of TCP/IP performance in highly constrained devices and network, recommendations to the IETF on protocol enhancements to optimize performance in this environment, and recommendations to WAPF on suitability of deploying native IP protocols.
由于认为TCP/IP协议栈过于昂贵，WAPF已经付出了相当大的努力来开发独特的传输协议和优化。这在很大程度上是基于WAP要求，以支持非常低的数据速率承载服务。建议IRTF的成员评估类WAP环境中TCP/IP堆栈的性能，以量化其行为和适用性。重点应包括调查代码和内存空间需求，以及完成当前WAP协议以及IPv4和IPv6的单个事务的链路使用情况。这项工作应能更好地描述高度受限设备和网络中的TCP/IP性能，向IETF推荐协议增强以优化该环境中的性能，并向WAPF推荐部署本机IP协议的适用性。
IETF protocol developments have traditionally taken the approach of preferring simple encode/decode and word alignment at the cost of some extra bit transmissions. This overhead may prove too burdensome in some bandwidth constrained environments, such as cellular wireless and WAP. Work within the IETF Robust Header Compression (rohc) working group may go a long way to reducing some of these detriments to Internet protocols deployment. However, there may be potential for additional savings from investigation of alternative encoding of common Internet protocols. It was recommended that members of the IRTF evaluate general techniques that can be used to reduce protocol "verbiage". Examples might include payload compression techniques or tokenized protocol encoding.
IETF协议的发展传统上采取了更倾向于简单编码/解码和字对齐的方法，而代价是一些额外的位传输。在某些带宽受限的环境中，如蜂窝无线和WAP中，这种开销可能过于繁重。IETF健壮报头压缩（rohc）工作组的工作可能会大大减少这些对互联网协议部署的损害。然而，通过研究通用互联网协议的替代编码，可能会有额外的节省。建议IRTF成员评估可用于减少协议“冗长”的一般技术。示例可能包括有效负载压缩技术或标记化协议编码。
Commercial roaming and mobility services are likely to require exchange of authentication, authorization, and billing services spanning multiple domains (service providers). This introduces requirements related to establishing a web or hierarchy of trust across multiple autonomous domains. Standard protocols to specify and exchange usage policies and billing information must also be established. Some work is progressing on scoping out the issues and a framework [7,64]. However, there are significant issues to be solved to enable a scalable, Internet-wide solution. Due to the pivotal role of these protocols on the ability to deploy commercial services, it was recommended to make finalization of scalable inter-domain AAA as high priority within the IETF.
商业漫游和移动服务可能需要跨多个域（服务提供商）交换身份验证、授权和计费服务。这引入了与跨多个自治域建立web或信任层次结构相关的需求。还必须建立用于指定和交换使用策略和计费信息的标准协议。在确定问题范围和框架方面，一些工作正在取得进展[7,64]。然而，要实现一个可扩展的、互联网范围的解决方案，还有一些重大问题需要解决。由于这些协议对部署商业服务的能力起着关键作用，建议在IETF中将可扩展域间AAA的最终确定作为高优先级。
Bluetooth protocols and devices were originally optimized for a narrow application space. However, there is interest in exploring the breadth to which protocol and device access can be extended. One particular area of interest is exploring integration into, or gatewaying access to, the Internet. It was recommended that the IETF pursue formation of a joint BOF to assemble experts from the IETF and Bluetooth communities to begin exploration of this problem. This is in direct support of the recommendations in section 4.1 to foster communication and mutual education.
蓝牙协议和设备最初是针对狭窄的应用空间进行优化的。然而，人们有兴趣探索协议和设备访问可以扩展到的广度。一个特别感兴趣的领域是探索互联网的集成或网关接入。建议IETF成立一个联合BOF，召集来自IETF和蓝牙社区的专家，开始探索这个问题。这直接支持第4.1节中关于促进沟通和相互教育的建议。
Proxy agents are often deployed to intercept and evaluate protocol requests (e.g., web cache, HTTP redirector, filtering firewall) or to gateway access between communication domains (e.g., traversing bastion host between private network and Internet or gatewaying between a cellular service and the Internet). There are a number of potential architectures when contemplating development and deployment of one of these proxy agent. It was recommended that members of the IRTF investigate taxonomy of proxy architectures and evaluate their characteristics and applicability. Each type of proxy should be characterized, for example, by its effect on Internet end-to-end model, and security, scaling, and performance implications. The results of this study can help educate developers and network operators on the range of proxy available and recommend solutions that are least disruptive to Internet protocols.
代理代理通常用于拦截和评估协议请求（例如，web缓存、HTTP重定向器、过滤防火墙）或通信域之间的网关访问（例如，穿越专用网络和Internet之间的堡垒主机或蜂窝服务和Internet之间的网关）。在考虑开发和部署其中一个代理时，有许多潜在的体系结构。建议IRTF的成员研究代理体系结构的分类，并评估其特性和适用性。例如，每种类型的代理都应该通过其对Internet端到端模型的影响、安全性、可扩展性和性能影响来确定。这项研究的结果可以帮助开发人员和网络运营商了解可用代理的范围，并推荐对互联网协议破坏最小的解决方案。
4.14 Recommendations on Justifying IPv6-based Solutions for Mobile / Wireless Internet
4.14 关于证明基于IPv6的移动/无线互联网解决方案合理性的建议
IPv6 was strongly recommended to address scaling (see section 4.3) and mobility (see section 4.4) issues in the future Internet dominated by large numbers of wireless and mobile devices. It was recommended that the IAB draft a formalized justification for these recommendations for adoption of IPv6-based solution. It was believed that the "The Case for IPv6" [40] document should form an excellent basis for this justification. In addition, documents highlighting architectural and operational pitfalls of continued reliance on IPv4 and NAT also provide excellent justification [29,31,59]. It was deemed urgent to submit these informational documents as inputs to other standards bodies (MWIF, 3GPP, 3G.IP), as many decisions are being made on Internet protocol adoption and this data could be highly influential.
强烈建议使用IPv6解决由大量无线和移动设备主导的未来互联网中的扩展（见第4.3节）和移动性（见第4.4节）问题。建议IAB为这些建议起草一份正式的理由，以采用基于IPv6的解决方案。据认为，“IPv6案例”[40]文件应构成这一理由的良好基础。此外，强调继续依赖IPv4和NAT的体系结构和操作缺陷的文件也提供了极好的理由[29,31,59]。人们认为迫切需要将这些信息性文件作为输入提交给其他标准机构（MWIF、3GPP、3G.IP），因为许多关于互联网协议采用的决定正在制定中，这些数据可能具有很大的影响力。
5 Security Considerations
5安全考虑
This workshop did not focus on security. However, mobility and wireless environment introduces additional complexities for security and potential attacks to user authentication and privacy. The presentations by Asokan and by Calhoun referenced in section 2 focused on security mechanisms in currently deployed cellular networks and evolution toward 3G cellular and IP networks. Discussion on the "walled garden" service model (see section 3.1) briefly mentions effects on simplifying security requirements. Section 3.3 raises a number of security issues related to wireless devices and mobility. These include alternatives for establishing user identity and capabilities, securing network infrastructure from attacks, and security associations required for mobile IP and AAA operation. Section 3.7 mentions interoperation issues between compression and encryption or tunneling, and finally section 3.9 highlight potential for proxy agent to be used to offload expensive crypto operations.
本次研讨会的重点不是安全问题。然而，移动和无线环境带来了额外的安全复杂性以及对用户身份验证和隐私的潜在攻击。第2节中提到的Asokan和Calhoun的演讲集中于当前部署的蜂窝网络中的安全机制以及向3G蜂窝网络和IP网络的演进。关于“围墙花园”服务模式的讨论（见第3.1节）简要提到了简化安全要求的效果。第3.3节提出了一些与无线设备和移动性相关的安全问题。其中包括建立用户身份和能力、保护网络基础设施免受攻击以及移动IP和AAA操作所需的安全关联的备选方案。第3.7节提到了压缩和加密或隧道之间的互操作问题，最后第3.9节强调了使用代理来卸载昂贵的加密操作的可能性。
6 Acknowledgments
6致谢
The author would like to thank all of the workshop participants for their feedback, encouragement, and patience during the writeup of this document. I would especially like to thank Brian Carpenter for prompt responses to questions on the document organization and content. Similarly, Charlie Perkins provided extensive feedback that dramatically improved and corrected statements throughout the report. Finally, Mikael Degermark, Sally Floyd, Heikki Hammainen, Geoff Huston, and Gabriel Montenegro contributed comments and responses to questions.
作者要感谢所有研讨会参与者在编写本文件期间的反馈、鼓励和耐心。我要特别感谢Brian Carpenter对有关文档组织和内容的问题的及时回复。同样，Charlie Perkins提供了广泛的反馈，极大地改进和纠正了整个报告中的陈述。最后，Mikael Degermark、Sally Floyd、Heikki Hammainen、Geoff Huston和Gabriel Montegon对问题发表了评论和回答。
7 Bibliography
7参考书目
[1] ACIRI. TCP-Friendly Rate Control. http://www.aciri.org/tfrc.
[1] 阿西里。TCP友好的速率控制。http://www.aciri.org/tfrc.
[2] A. Aggarwal, S. Savage, and T. Anderson. Understanding the Performance of TCP Pacing. Proceedings of IEEE Infocom 2000, March 2000.
[2] A.阿加瓦尔、S.萨维奇和T.安德森。了解TCP起搏的性能。IEEE Infocom 2000年会议记录，2000年3月。
[3] Allman, M., Floyd, S. and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 2414, September 1998.
[3] 奥尔曼，M.，弗洛伊德，S.和C.帕特里奇，“增加TCP的初始窗口”，RFC24141998年9月。
[4] Allman, M., Glover, D. and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms", RFC 2488, January 1999.
[4] Allman，M.，Glover，D.和L.Sanchez，“使用标准机制增强卫星信道上的TCP”，RFC 2488，1999年1月。
[5] Allman, M., Paxson, V. and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[5] Allman，M.，Paxson，V.和W.Stevens，“TCP拥塞控制”，RFC 25811999年4月。
[6] Allman, M., Dawkins, S., Glover, D., Griner, J., Tran, D., Henderson, T., Heidemann, J., Touch, J., Kruse, H., Ostermann, S., Scott, K. and J. Semke, "Ongoing TCP Research Related to Satellites", RFC 2760, February 2000.
[6] 奥尔曼，M.，道金斯，S.，格洛弗，D.，格林纳，J.，特兰，D.，亨德森，T.，海德曼，J.，Touch，J.，克鲁斯，H.，奥斯特曼，S.，斯科特，K.和J.塞姆克，“正在进行的与卫星相关的TCP研究”，RFC 2760，2000年2月。
[7] Arkko, J., "Requirements for Internet-Scale Accounting Management", Work in Progress.
[7] Arkko，J.，“互联网规模会计管理的要求”，正在进行的工作。
[8] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283, February 1998.
[8] Bates，T.，Chandra，R.，Katz，D.和Y.Rekhter，“BGP-4的多协议扩展”，RFC 2283，1998年2月。
[9] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z. and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services" RFC 2475, December 1998.
[9] Blake，S.，Black，D.，Carlson，M.，Davies，E.，Wang，Z.和W.Weiss，“差异化服务架构”，RFC 24751998年12月。
[10] Borella, M., et al., "Realm Specific IP: Framework", Work in Progress.
[10] Borella，M.等人，“领域特定IP：框架”，正在进行的工作。
[11] Borella, M., et al., "Realm Specific IP: Protocol Specification", Work in Progress.
[11] Borella，M.等人，“领域特定IP：协议规范”，正在进行的工作。
[12] Braden, R., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.
[12] Braden，R.，“T/TCP——事务功能规范的TCP扩展”，RFC16441994年7月。
[13] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[13] Braden，R.，Zhang，L.，Berson，S.，Herzog，S.和S.Jamin，“资源预留协议（RSVP）——第1版功能规范”，RFC 22052997年9月。
[14] Brim, S., Carpenter, B. and F. Le Faucheur, "Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes", RFC 2836, May 2000.
[14] Brim，S.，Carpenter，B.和F.Le Faucheur，“每跳行为识别码”，RFC 28362000年5月。
[15] Carpenter, B., Crowcroft, J. and Y. Rekhter, "IPv4 Address Behaviour Today", RFC 2101, February 1997.
[15] Carpenter，B.，Crowcroft，J.和Y.Rekhter，“今天的IPv4地址行为”，RFC21011997年2月。
[16] Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775, February 2000.
[16] Carpenter，B.，“互联网透明度”，RFC 27752000年2月。
[17] Crawford, M., "Router Renumbering for IPv6", RFC 2894, August 2000.
[17] Crawford，M.，“IPv6路由器重新编号”，RFC 28942000年8月。
[18] Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP)", RFC 951, September 1985.
[18] Croft，B.和J.Gilmore，“引导协议（BOOTP）”，RFC 9511985年9月。
[19] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[19] Deering，S.和R.Hinden，“互联网协议，第6版（IPv6）规范”，RFC 2460，1998年12月。
[20] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999.
[20] Dierks，T.和C.Allen，“TLS协议1.0版”，RFC 2246，1999年1月。
[21] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997.
[21] Droms，R.，“动态主机配置协议”，RFC 2131，1997年3月。
[22] Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullman, R. and P. Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990.
[22] Everhart，C.，Mamakos，L.，Ullman，R.和P.Mockapetris，“新DNS RR定义”，RFC 1183，1990年10月。
[23] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[23] 菲尔丁，R.，盖蒂斯，J.，莫卧儿，J.，弗莱斯蒂克，H.，马斯特，L.，利奇，P.和T.伯纳斯李，“超文本传输协议——HTTP/1.1”，RFC2616，1999年6月。
[24] Floyd, S. and T. Henderson, "The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 2582, April 1999.
[24] Floyd，S.和T.Henderson，“TCP快速恢复算法的NewReno修改”，RFC 2582，1999年4月。
[25] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M. and M. Podolsky, "An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) Option for TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000.
[25] Floyd，S.，Mahdavi，J.，Mathis，M.和M.Podolsky，“TCP选择性确认（SACK）选项的扩展”，RFC 28832000年7月。
[26] Glass, S., Hiller, T., Jacobs, S. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Requirements", RFC 2977, October 2000.
[26] Glass，S.，Hiller，T.，Jacobs，S.和C.Perkins，“移动IP认证、授权和记帐要求”，RFC 29772000年10月。
[27] Gulbrandsen, A. and P. Vixie, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2052, October 1996.
[27] Gulbrandsen，A.和P.Vixie，“用于指定服务位置（DNS SRV）的DNS RR”，RFC 2052，1996年10月。
[28] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999.
[28] Guttman，E.，Perkins，C.，Veizades，J.和M.Day，“服务位置协议，版本2”，RFC 26081999年6月。
[29] Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993, November 2000.
[29] Hain，T.，“NAT的建筑含义”，RFC 2993，2000年11月。
[30] Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E., and J. Rosenberg, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 2543, March 1999.
[30] Handley，M.，Schulzrinne，H.，Schooler，E.，和J.Rosenberg，“SIP：会话启动协议”，RFC 25431999年3月。
[31] Holdrege, M. and P. Srisuresh, "Protocol Complications with the IP Network Address Translator (NAT)", Work in Progress.
[31] Holdrege，M.和P.Srisuresh，“IP网络地址转换器（NAT）的协议复杂性”，正在进行中。
[32] International Telecommunication Union. Visual Telephone Systems and Equipment for Local Area Networks which provide a Non-guaranteed Quality of Service. Recommendation H.323, May 1996.
[32] 国际电信联盟。提供非保证服务质量的局域网可视电话系统和设备。建议H.323，1996年5月。
[33] ISO/IEC. Protocol for Exchange of Inter-Domain Routeing Information among Intermediate Systems to support Forwarding of ISO 8473 PDUs. ISO/IEC IS10747, 1993.
[33] ISO/IEC。用于在中间系统之间交换域间路由信息以支持ISO 8473 PDU转发的协议。ISO/IEC IS107471993。
[34] V. Jacobson. Congestion Avoidance and Control. Computer Communication Review, vol. 18, no. 4 August 1988. ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.ps.Z.
[34] V.雅各布森。拥塞避免和控制。《计算机通信评论》，第18卷，1988年8月4日。ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.ps.Z.
[35] V. Jacobson. Modified TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm. end2end-interest mailing list, April 30, 1990. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/end2end/end2end-interest-1990.mail.
[35] V.雅各布森。改进的TCP拥塞避免算法。end2end interest邮件列表，1990年4月30日。ftp://ftp.isi.edu/end2end/end2end-interest-1990.mail.
[36] Jacobson, V., Braden, R. and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[36] Jacobson，V.，Braden，R.和D.Borman，“高性能TCP扩展”，RFC 1323，1992年5月。
[37] Johnson, D. and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6", Work in Progress.
[37] Johnson，D.和C.Perkins，“IPv6中的移动支持”，正在进行中。
[38] Jonsson, L., et al., "RObust Checksum-based header COmpression (ROCCO)", Work in Progress.
[38] Jonsson，L.等人，“基于校验和的鲁棒头压缩（ROCCO）”，正在进行中。
[39] Karn, P., et al., "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", Work in Progress.
[39] Karn，P.等人，“互联网子网设计师的建议”，正在进行中。
[40] King, S., et al., "The Case for IPv6", Work in Progress.
[40] King，S.等人，“IPv6案例”，正在进行中。
[41] J. Kulik, R. Coulter, D. Rockwell, and C. Partridge. Paced TCP for High Delay-Bandwidth Networks. Proceedings of IEEE Globecom '99, December 1999.
[41] J.库利克、R.库尔特、D.罗克韦尔和C.帕特里奇。用于高延迟带宽网络的步调TCP。IEEE Globecom’99会议记录，1999年12月。
[42] Le, K., et al., "Adaptive Header ComprEssion (ACE) for Real-Time Multimedia", Work in Progress.
[42] Le，K.等人，“实时多媒体的自适应报头压缩（ACE）”，正在进行中。
[43] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S. and A. Romanow, "TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[43] Mathis，M.，Mahdavi，J.，Floyd，S.和A.Romanow，“TCP选择性确认选项”，RFC 2018，1996年10月。
[44] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names -- Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[44] Mockapetris，P.，“域名——概念和设施”，STD 13，RFC 10341987年11月。
[45] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names -- Implementation and Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[45] Mockapetris，P.，“域名——实现和规范”，STD 13，RFC 10351987年11月。
[46] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
[46] Nichols，K.，Blake，S.，Baker，F.和D.Black，“IPv4和IPv6标头中区分服务字段（DS字段）的定义”，RFC 2474，1998年12月。
[47] Partridge, C., Mendez, T. and W. Milliken, "Host Anycasting Service", RFC 1546, November 1993.
[47] 帕特里奇，C.，门德斯，T.和W.米利肯，“主持任意广播服务”，RFC15461993年11月。
[48] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, October 1996.
[48] Perkins，C.，“IP移动支持”，RFC 2002，1996年10月。
[49] Perkins, C. and P. Calhoun, "AAA Registration Keys for Mobile IP", Work in Progress.
[49] Perkins，C.和P.Calhoun，“移动IP的AAA注册密钥”，正在进行中。
[50] Perkins, C. and D. Johnson, "Route Optimization in Mobile IP", Work in Progress.
[50] Perkins，C.和D.Johnson，“移动IP中的路由优化”，正在进行中。
[51] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August 1980.
[51] Postel，J.，“用户数据报协议”，STD 6，RFC 768，1980年8月。
[52] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[52] Postel，J.，“互联网协议”，STD 5，RFC 7911981年9月。
[53] Ramakrishnan, K. and S. Floyd, "A Proposal to add Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 2481, January 1999.
[53] Ramakrishnan，K.和S.Floyd，“向IP添加明确拥塞通知（ECN）的提案”，RFC 2481，1999年1月。
[54] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.
[54] Rekhter，Y.和T.Li，“边境网关协议4（BGP-4）”，RFC 17711995年3月。
[55] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[55] Rekhter，Y.，Moskowitz，B.，Karrenberg，D.，de Groot，G.和E.Lear，“私人互联网地址分配”，BCP 5，RFC 1918，1996年2月。
[56] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2138, April 1997.
[56] Rigney，C.，Rubens，A.，Simpson，W.和S.Willens，“远程认证拨入用户服务（RADIUS）”，RFC 21381997年4月。
[57] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Fredrick, R. and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 1889, January 1996.
[57] Schulzrinne，H.，Casner，S.，Fredrick，R.和V.Jacobson，“RTP：实时应用的传输协议”，RFC 1889，1996年1月。
[58] J. Semke, J. Mahdavi, and M. Mathis. Automatic TCP Buffer Tuning. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '98, September 1998.
[58] 塞姆克、马赫达维和马蒂斯。自动TCP缓冲区调整。ACM SIGCOMM'98会议记录，1998年9月。
[59] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, August 1999.
[59] Srisuresh，P.和M.Holdrege，“IP网络地址转换器（NAT）术语和注意事项”，RFC 2663，1999年8月。
[60] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", Work in Progress.
[60] Srisuresh，P.和K.Egevang，“传统IP网络地址转换器（传统NAT）”，正在进行中。
[61] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.
[61] Stewart，R.，Xie，Q.，Morneault，K.，Sharp，C.，Schwarzbauer，H.，Taylor，T.，Rytina，I.，Kalla，M.，Zhang，L.和V.Paxson，“流控制传输协议”，RFC 29602000年10月。
[62] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[62] Thomson，S.和T.Narten，“IPv6无状态地址自动配置”，RFC 2462，1998年12月。
[63] Touch, J., "TCP Control Block Interdependence", RFC 2140, April 1997.
[63] Touch，J.，“TCP控制块相互依赖”，RFC 2140，1997年4月。
[64] Vollbrecht, J., et al., "AAA Authorization Framework", Work in Progress.
[64] Vollbrecht，J.等人，“AAA授权框架”，正在进行的工作。
A Participants
A参与者
Juha Ala-Laurila JUHA.ALA-LAURILA@nokia.com Mark Allman mallman@grc.nasa.gov Alastair Angwin angwin@uk.ibm.com N. Asokan n.asokan@nokia.com Victor Bahl bahl@microsoft.com Fred Baker fred@cisco.com Pravin Bhagwat pravinb@us.ibm.com Scott Bradner sob@harvard.edu Randy Bush randy@psg.com Pat Calhoun Pcalhoun@eng.sun.com Brian Carpenter brian@icair.org Mikael Degermark micke@cs.arizona.edu Sally Floyd floyd@aciri.org Heikki Hammainen HEIKKI.HAMMAINEN@NOKIA.COM Mark Handley mjh@aciri.org Bob Hinden hinden@iprg.nokia.com Christian Huitema huitema@microsoft.com Chih-Lin I ci@att.com Van Jacobson van@packetdesign.com Phil Karn Karn@qualcomm.com John Klensin Klensin@JCK.com Jerry Lahti jerry.lahti@nokia.com Allison Mankin mankin@isi.edu Danny J. Mitzel mitzel@iprg.nokia.com Gabriel Montenegro gab@sun.com Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu Eric Nordmark nordmark@sun.com Charles E. Perkins charliep@iprg.nokia.com Jonne Soininen jonna.Soininen@nokia.com Chris A. Wargo cwargo@cnsw.com Lars Westberg Lars.Westberg@era.ericsson.se Lixia Zhang lixia@cs.ucla.edu
Juha Ala Laurila Juha.Ala-LAURILA@nokia.com马克·奥尔曼mallman@grc.nasa.gov阿拉斯泰尔·安温angwin@uk.ibm.com麻生。asokan@nokia.com维克托·巴尔bahl@microsoft.com弗雷德·贝克fred@cisco.com普拉文·巴格瓦特pravinb@us.ibm.com斯科特·布拉德纳sob@harvard.edu兰迪·布什randy@psg.com帕特·卡尔霍恩Pcalhoun@eng.sun.com布莱恩·卡彭特brian@icair.org米凯尔·德格马克micke@cs.arizona.edu萨莉·弗洛伊德floyd@aciri.org海基·哈曼·海基。HAMMAINEN@NOKIA.COM马克·汉德利mjh@aciri.org鲍勃·欣登hinden@iprg.nokia.com克里斯蒂安·惠特马huitema@microsoft.com智林一世ci@att.com范雅各布森van@packetdesign.com菲尔·卡恩Karn@qualcomm.com约翰·克莱辛Klensin@JCK.com杰瑞拉蒂·杰瑞。lahti@nokia.com埃里森·曼金mankin@isi.edu丹尼·J·米泽尔mitzel@iprg.nokia.com加布里埃尔黑山gab@sun.com基思摩尔moore@cs.utk.edu埃里克·诺德马克nordmark@sun.com查尔斯·E·珀金斯charliep@iprg.nokia.com乔恩·索伊宁·乔娜。Soininen@nokia.com克里斯·A·沃戈cwargo@cnsw.com拉尔斯·韦斯特伯格·拉尔斯。Westberg@era.ericsson.se 张丽霞lixia@cs.ucla.edu
B Author's Address
B作者地址
Danny J. Mitzel Nokia 313 Fairchild Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Danny J.Mitzel诺基亚313飞兆半导体山景大道，加利福尼亚州94043
Phone: +1 650 625 2037
EMail: mitzel@iprg.nokia.com
Phone: +1 650 625 2037
EMail: mitzel@iprg.nokia.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。