Network Working Group                                          B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 3228                                 AT&T Research
BCP: 57                                                    February 2002
Category: Best Current Practice
        
Network Working Group                                          B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 3228                                 AT&T Research
BCP: 57                                                    February 2002
Category: Best Current Practice

IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP)

IPv4 Internet组管理协议（IGMP）的IANA注意事项

Status of this Memo

本备忘录的状况

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

本文件规定了互联网社区的最佳现行做法，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。

Copyright Notice

版权公告

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002年）。版权所有。

Abstract

摘要

This memo requests that the IANA create a registry for fields in the IGMP (Internet Group Management Protocol) protocol header, and provides guidance for the IANA to use in assigning parameters for those fields.

本备忘录要求IANA为IGMP（互联网组管理协议）协议头中的字段创建一个注册表，并为IANA分配这些字段的参数提供指导。

Table of Contents

目录 

   1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1
   2. IANA Considerations for fields in the IPv4 IGMP header. . . .   2
   3. Assignments for testing and experimentation . . . . . . . . .   2
   4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   5. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   6. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   7. Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   8. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
        
   1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1
   2. IANA Considerations for fields in the IPv4 IGMP header. . . .   2
   3. Assignments for testing and experimentation . . . . . . . . .   2
   4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   5. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   6. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   7. Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   8. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
1. Introduction
1. 介绍

This memo requests that the IANA create a registry for fields in the IGMP protocol header.

此备忘录要求IANA为IGMP协议头中的字段创建注册表。

The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to refer to the processes described in [2].

本备忘录中使用的术语“所需规范”、“专家评审”、“IESG批准”、“IETF共识”和“标准行动”是指[2]中描述的过程。

2. IANA Considerations for fields in the IPv4 IGMP header
2. IPv4 IGMP标头中字段的IANA注意事项

The IPv4 IGMP header [1] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type and Code. Code field values are defined relative to a specific Type value.

IPv4 IGMP标头[1]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA托管名称空间分配的值：类型和代码。代码字段值是相对于特定类型值定义的。

Values for the IPv4 IGMP Type fields are allocated using an IESG Approval or Standards Action processes. Code Values for existing IPv4 IGMP Type fields are allocated using IESG Approval or Standards Action processes. The policy for assigning Code values for new IPv4 IGMP Types should be defined in the document defining the new Type value.

IPv4 IGMP类型字段的值是使用IESG批准或标准操作流程分配的。现有IPv4 IGMP类型字段的代码值是使用IESG批准或标准操作流程分配的。应在定义新类型值的文档中定义为新IPv4 IGMP类型分配代码值的策略。

3. Assignments for testing and experimentation
3. 测试和实验任务

Instead of suggesting temporary assignments as in [3], this document follows the lead of [4] and assigns a range of values for experimental use. The IGMP Code values 240-255 inclusive (0xf0 - 0xff) are reserved for protocol testing and experimentation.

与[3]中建议的临时赋值不同，本文件遵循[4]的指导，并为实验使用指定了一系列值。IGMP代码值240-255（包括0xf0-0xff）保留用于协议测试和实验。

Systems should silently ignore IGMP messages with unknown Code values.

系统应静默忽略具有未知代码值的IGMP消息。

4. Security Considerations
4. 安全考虑

Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields described in this memo. As new values for the fields are assigned, existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or loss of security if it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an attack. This vulnerability argues for high visibility (which the Standards Action and IETF Consensus processes ensure) for the assignments whenever possible.

防火墙和网络入侵检测监视器等安全分析器通常依赖于本备忘录中所述字段的明确解释。在为字段分配新值时，不了解新值的现有安全分析器可能会失败，如果分析器拒绝转发未识别的流量，则会导致连接丢失；如果确实转发了流量，并且新值被用作攻击的一部分，则会导致安全性丢失。此漏洞要求任务尽可能具有高可见性（这是标准行动和IETF共识过程确保的）。

5. Normative References
5. 规范性引用文件

[1] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

[1] Fenner，W.，“互联网组管理协议，第2版”，RFC 2236，1997年11月。

[2] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

[2] Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 2434，1998年10月。

6. Informative References
6. 资料性引用

[3] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.

[3] Bradner，S.和V.Paxson，“互联网协议和相关报头中值的IANA分配指南”，BCP 37，RFC 27802000年3月。

[4] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", Work in Progress.

[4] Narten，T.，“分配被认为有用的实验和测试数字”，正在进行中。

7. Author's Address
7. 作者地址

Bill Fenner AT&T Labs -- Research 75 Willow Rd Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA

比尔·芬纳AT&T实验室——美国加利福尼亚州门罗公园威洛路75号研究中心，邮编94025 

         EMail: fenner@research.att.com
        
         EMail: fenner@research.att.com
8. Full Copyright Statement
8. 完整版权声明

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002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。