Network Working Group T. Lemon
Request for Comments: 3442 Nominum, Inc.
Updates: 2132 S. Cheshire
Category: Standards Track Apple Computer, Inc.
B. Volz
Ericsson
December 2002
Network Working Group T. Lemon
Request for Comments: 3442 Nominum, Inc.
Updates: 2132 S. Cheshire
Category: Standards Track Apple Computer, Inc.
B. Volz
Ericsson
December 2002
The Classless Static Route Option for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 4
动态主机配置协议（DHCP）版本4的无类静态路由选项
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。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 document defines a new Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) option which is passed from the DHCP Server to the DHCP Client to configure a list of static routes in the client. The network destinations in these routes are classless - each routing table entry includes a subnet mask.
本文档定义了一个新的动态主机配置协议（DHCP）选项，该选项从DHCP服务器传递到DHCP客户端，以配置客户端中的静态路由列表。这些路由中的网络目标是无类的-每个路由表条目都包含一个子网掩码。
Introduction
介绍
This option obsoletes the Static Route option (option 33) defined in RFC 2132 [4].
该选项废弃了RFC 2132[4]中定义的静态路由选项（选项33）。
The IP protocol [1] uses routers to transmit packets from hosts connected to one IP subnet to hosts connected to a different IP subnet. When an IP host (the source host) wishes to transmit a packet to another IP host (the destination), it consults its routing table to determine the IP address of the router that should be used to forward the packet to the destination host.
IP协议[1]使用路由器将数据包从连接到一个IP子网的主机传输到连接到另一个IP子网的主机。当一个IP主机（源主机）希望将数据包传输到另一个IP主机（目标主机）时，它会参考其路由表来确定应该用于将数据包转发到目标主机的路由器的IP地址。
The routing table on an IP host can be maintained in a variety of ways - using a routing information protocol such as RIP [8], ICMP router discovery [6,9] or using the DHCP Router option, defined in RFC 2132 [4].
IP主机上的路由表可以通过多种方式维护-使用路由信息协议，如RIP[8]、ICMP路由器发现[6,9]或使用RFC 2132[4]中定义的DHCP路由器选项。
In a network that already provides DHCP service, using DHCP to update the routing table on a DHCP client has several virtues. It is efficient, since it makes use of messages that would have been sent anyway. It is convenient - the DHCP server configuration is already being maintained, so maintaining routing information, at least on a relatively stable network, requires little extra work. If DHCP service is already in use, no additional infrastructure need be deployed.
在已经提供DHCP服务的网络中，使用DHCP更新DHCP客户端上的路由表有几个优点。它是高效的，因为它利用了无论如何都会被发送的消息。这很方便-DHCP服务器配置已经在维护中，因此至少在相对稳定的网络上维护路由信息只需要很少的额外工作。如果DHCP服务已在使用中，则无需部署其他基础结构。
The DHCP protocol as defined in RFC 2131 [3] and the options defined in RFC 2132 [4] only provide a mechanism for installing a default route or installing a table of classful routes. Classful routes are routes whose subnet mask is implicit in the subnet number - see section 3.2 of STD 5, RFC 791 [1] for details on classful routing.
RFC 2131[3]中定义的DHCP协议和RFC 2132[4]中定义的选项仅为安装默认路由或安装类路由表提供了一种机制。类路由是子网掩码隐含在子网编号中的路由-有关类路由的详细信息，请参阅STD 5 RFC 791[1]第3.2节。
Classful routing is no longer in common use, so the DHCP Static Route option is no longer useful. Currently, classless routing [7, 10] is the most commonly-deployed form of routing on the Internet. In classless routing, IP addresses consist of a network number (the combination of the network number and subnet number described in RFC 950 [7]) and a host number.
类路由不再常用，因此DHCP静态路由选项不再有用。目前，无类路由[7，10]是Internet上最常用的路由部署形式。在无类路由中，IP地址由网络号（RFC 950[7]中描述的网络号和子网号的组合）和主机号组成。
In classful IP, the network number and host number are derived from the IP address using a bitmask whose value is determined by the first few bits of the IP address. In classless IP, the network number and host number are derived from the IP address using a separate quantity, the subnet mask. In order to determine the network to which a given route applies, an IP host must know both the network number AND the subnet mask for that network.
在classful IP中，网络号和主机号是使用位掩码从IP地址派生的，位掩码的值由IP地址的前几位决定。在无类IP中，网络号和主机号是使用一个单独的量（子网掩码）从IP地址派生的。为了确定应用给定路由的网络，IP主机必须知道该网络的网络号和子网掩码。
The Static Routes option (option 33) does not provide a subnet mask for each route - it is assumed that the subnet mask is implicit in whatever network number is specified in each route entry. The Classless Static Routes option does provide a subnet mask for each entry, so that the subnet mask can be other than what would be determined using the algorithm specified in STD 5, RFC 791 [1] and STD 5, RFC 950 [7].
静态路由选项（选项33）不为每个路由提供子网掩码-假定子网掩码隐含在每个路由条目中指定的任何网络编号中。无类静态路由选项确实为每个条目提供了子网掩码，因此子网掩码可以不同于使用STD 5、RFC 791[1]和STD 5、RFC 950[7]中指定的算法确定的子网掩码。
Definitions
定义
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [2].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照BCP 14、RFC 2119[2]中的说明进行解释。
This document also uses the following terms:
本文件还使用以下术语：
"DHCP client"
“DHCP客户端”
DHCP client or "client" is an Internet host using DHCP to obtain configuration parameters such as a network address.
DHCP客户端或“客户端”是使用DHCP获取配置参数（如网络地址）的Internet主机。
"DHCP server"
“DHCP服务器”
A DHCP server or "server" is an Internet host that returns configuration parameters to DHCP clients.
DHCP服务器或“服务器”是向DHCP客户端返回配置参数的Internet主机。
"link"
“链接”
Any set of network attachment points that will all receive a link-layer broadcast sent on any one of the attachment points. This term is used in DHCP because in some cases more than one IP subnet may be configured on a link. DHCP uses a local-network (all-ones) broadcast, which is not subnet-specific, and will therefore reach all nodes connected to the link, regardless of the IP subnet or subnets on which they are configured.
将全部接收在任何一个连接点上发送的链路层广播的任何一组网络连接点。此术语用于DHCP，因为在某些情况下，链路上可能配置多个IP子网。DHCP使用不特定于子网的本地网络（所有网络）广播，因此将到达连接到链路的所有节点，而不考虑配置它们的IP子网或子网。
A "link" is sometimes referred to as a broadcast domain or physical network segment.
“链路”有时被称为广播域或物理网段。
Classless Route Option Format
无类路由选项格式
The code for this option is 121, and its minimum length is 5 bytes. This option can contain one or more static routes, each of which consists of a destination descriptor and the IP address of the router that should be used to reach that destination.
此选项的代码为121，最小长度为5字节。此选项可以包含一个或多个静态路由，每个静态路由由目标描述符和用于到达该目标的路由器的IP地址组成。
Code Len Destination 1 Router 1
+-----+---+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| 121 | n | d1 | ... | dN | r1 | r2 | r3 | r4 |
+-----+---+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
Code Len Destination 1 Router 1
+-----+---+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| 121 | n | d1 | ... | dN | r1 | r2 | r3 | r4 |
+-----+---+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
Destination 2 Router 2
+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| d1 | ... | dN | r1 | r2 | r3 | r4 |
+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
Destination 2 Router 2
+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| d1 | ... | dN | r1 | r2 | r3 | r4 |
+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
In the above example, two static routes are specified.
在上面的示例中，指定了两个静态路由。
Destination descriptors describe the IP subnet number and subnet mask of a particular destination using a compact encoding. This encoding consists of one octet describing the width of the subnet mask, followed by all the significant octets of the subnet number.
目标描述符使用压缩编码描述特定目标的IP子网编号和子网掩码。此编码由一个描述子网掩码宽度的八位字节组成，然后是子网编号的所有有效八位字节。
The width of the subnet mask describes the number of one bits in the mask, so for example a subnet with a subnet number of 10.0.127.0 and a netmask of 255.255.255.0 would have a subnet mask width of 24.
子网掩码的宽度描述了掩码中的一位数，因此，例如，子网编号为10.0.127.0且网络掩码为255.255.255.0的子网的子网掩码宽度为24。
The significant portion of the subnet number is simply all of the octets of the subnet number where the corresponding octet in the subnet mask is non-zero. The number of significant octets is the width of the subnet mask divided by eight, rounding up, as shown in the following table:
子网编号的有效部分只是子网编号的所有八位字节，其中子网掩码中的对应八位字节为非零。有效八位字节数是子网掩码的宽度除以八，四舍五入，如下表所示：
Width of subnet mask Number of significant octets 0 0 1- 8 1 9-16 2 17-24 3 25-32 4
子网掩码宽度有效八位字节数0 0 1-8 1 9-16 2 17-24 3 25-32 4
The following table contains some examples of how various subnet number/mask combinations can be encoded:
下表包含如何对各种子网编号/掩码组合进行编码的一些示例：
Subnet number Subnet mask Destination descriptor 0 0 0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 8.10 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 24.10.0.0 10.17.0.0 255.255.0.0 16.10.17 10.27.129.0 255.255.255.0 24.10.27.129 10.229.0.128 255.255.255.128 25.10.229.0.128 10.198.122.47 255.255.255.255 32.10.198.122.47
子网编号子网掩码目标描述符0 0 0 10.0.0 255.0.0 8.10 10 10.0.0 255.255.255.0 24.10.0.0 10.17.0.0 255.0 255.0 16.10.17 10.27.0 255.255.255.0 24.10.27.129 10.229.0.128 255.255.128 25.10.229.0.128 10.198.122.47 255.255.255.255.255.32.10.198.122.47
Local Subnet Routes
本地子网路由
In some cases more than one IP subnet may be configured on a link. In such cases, a host whose IP address is in one IP subnet in the link could communicate directly with a host whose IP address is in a different IP subnet on the same link. In cases where a client is being assigned an IP address on an IP subnet on such a link, for each IP subnet in the link other than the IP subnet on which the client has been assigned the DHCP server MAY be configured to specify a router IP address of 0.0.0.0.
在某些情况下，链路上可能会配置多个IP子网。在这种情况下，IP地址位于链路中一个IP子网中的主机可以直接与IP地址位于同一链路上另一个IP子网中的主机通信。在这样一条链路上的IP子网上为客户机分配了IP地址的情况下，对于链路中除已分配客户机的IP子网之外的每个IP子网，DHCP服务器可配置为指定0.0.0.0的路由器IP地址。
For example, consider the case where there are three IP subnets configured on a link: 10.0.0/24, 192.168.0/24, 10.0.21/24. If the client is assigned an IP address of 10.0.21.17, then the server could include a route with a destination of 10.0.0/24 and a router address of 0.0.0.0, and also a route with a destination of 192.168.0/24 and a router address of 0.0.0.0.
例如，考虑在链路上配置有三个IP子网的情况：100.0/24，192.168 0/24，100.21/24。如果为客户端分配了10.0.21.17的IP地址，那么服务器可以包括一个目的地为10.0.0/24、路由器地址为0.0.0.0的路由，以及一个目的地为192.168.0/24、路由器地址为0.0.0的路由。
A DHCP client whose underlying TCP/IP stack does not provide this capability MUST ignore routes in the Classless Static Routes option whose router IP address is 0.0.0.0. Please note that the behavior described here only applies to the Classless Static Routes option, not to the Static Routes option nor the Router option.
底层TCP/IP堆栈不提供此功能的DHCP客户端必须忽略路由器IP地址为0.0.0.0的无类静态路由选项中的路由。请注意，此处描述的行为仅适用于无类静态路由选项，而不适用于静态路由选项或路由器选项。
DHCP Client Behavior
DHCP客户端行为
DHCP clients that do not support this option MUST ignore it if it is received from a DHCP server. DHCP clients that support this option MUST install the routes specified in the option, except as specified in the Local Subnet Routes section. DHCP clients that support this option MUST NOT install the routes specified in the Static Routes option (option code 33) if both a Static Routes option and the Classless Static Routes option are provided.
不支持此选项的DHCP客户端在从DHCP服务器接收时必须忽略此选项。支持此选项的DHCP客户端必须安装该选项中指定的路由，本地子网路由部分中指定的路由除外。如果同时提供了静态路由选项和无类静态路由选项，则支持此选项的DHCP客户端不得安装静态路由选项（选项代码33）中指定的路由。
DHCP clients that support this option and that send a DHCP Parameter Request List option MUST request both this option and the Router option [4] in the DHCP Parameter Request List.
支持此选项并发送DHCP参数请求列表选项的DHCP客户端必须同时请求此选项和DHCP参数请求列表中的路由器选项[4]。
DHCP clients that support this option and send a parameter request list MAY also request the Static Routes option, for compatibility with older servers that don't support Classless Static Routes. The Classless Static Routes option code MUST appear in the parameter request list prior to both the Router option code and the Static Routes option code, if present.
支持此选项并发送参数请求列表的DHCP客户端也可能请求静态路由选项，以与不支持无类静态路由的旧服务器兼容。无类别静态路由选项代码必须出现在路由器选项代码和静态路由选项代码（如果存在）之前的参数请求列表中。
If the DHCP server returns both a Classless Static Routes option and a Router option, the DHCP client MUST ignore the Router option.
如果DHCP服务器同时返回无类静态路由选项和路由器选项，则DHCP客户端必须忽略路由器选项。
Similarly, if the DHCP server returns both a Classless Static Routes option and a Static Routes option, the DHCP client MUST ignore the Static Routes option.
类似地，如果DHCP服务器同时返回无类静态路由选项和静态路由选项，则DHCP客户端必须忽略静态路由选项。
After deriving a subnet number and subnet mask from each destination descriptor, the DHCP client MUST zero any bits in the subnet number where the corresponding bit in the mask is zero. In other words, the subnet number installed in the routing table is the logical AND of the subnet number and subnet mask given in the Classless Static Routes option. For example, if the server sends a route with a destination of 129.210.177.132 (hexadecimal 81D4B184) and a subnet
从每个目标描述符导出子网编号和子网掩码后，DHCP客户端必须将子网编号中的任何位（掩码中的对应位为零）归零。换句话说，路由表中安装的子网编号是无类静态路由选项中给定的子网编号和子网掩码的逻辑AND。例如，如果服务器发送的路由的目的地为129.210.177.132（十六进制81D4B184）和子网
mask of 255.255.255.128 (hexadecimal FFFFFF80), the client will install a route with a destination of 129.210.177.128 (hexadecimal 81D4B180).
掩码为255.255.255.128（十六进制FFFFFF 80），客户端将安装目标为129.210.177.128（十六进制81D4B180）的路由。
Requirements to Avoid Sizing Constraints
避免大小限制的要求
Because a full routing table can be quite large, the standard 576 octet maximum size for a DHCP message may be too short to contain some legitimate Classless Static Route options. Because of this, clients implementing the Classless Static Route option SHOULD send a Maximum DHCP Message Size [4] option if the DHCP client's TCP/IP stack is capable of receiving larger IP datagrams. In this case, the client SHOULD set the value of this option to at least the MTU of the interface that the client is configuring. The client MAY set the value of this option higher, up to the size of the largest UDP packet it is prepared to accept. (Note that the value specified in the Maximum DHCP Message Size option is the total maximum packet size, including IP and UDP headers.)
由于完整路由表可能非常大，DHCP消息的标准576八位字节最大大小可能太短，无法包含一些合法的无类静态路由选项。因此，如果DHCP客户端的TCP/IP堆栈能够接收较大的IP数据报，则实现无类静态路由选项的客户端应发送最大DHCP消息大小[4]选项。在这种情况下，客户端应至少将此选项的值设置为客户端正在配置的接口的MTU。客户机可以将此选项的值设置得更高，最大为它准备接受的最大UDP数据包的大小。（请注意，在最大DHCP消息大小选项中指定的值是最大数据包总大小，包括IP和UDP标头。）
DHCP clients requesting this option, and DHCP servers sending this option, MUST implement DHCP option concatenation [5]. In the terminology of RFC 3396 [5], the Classless Static Route Option is a concatenation-requiring option.
请求此选项的DHCP客户端和发送此选项的DHCP服务器必须实现DHCP选项连接[5]。在RFC3396[5]的术语中，无类静态路由选项是一个需要连接的选项。
DHCP Server Administrator Responsibilities
DHCP服务器管理员职责
Many clients may not implement the Classless Static Routes option. DHCP server administrators should therefore configure their DHCP servers to send both a Router option and a Classless Static Routes option, and should specify the default router(s) both in the Router option and in the Classless Static Routes option.
许多客户端可能没有实现无类静态路由选项。因此，DHCP服务器管理员应将其DHCP服务器配置为同时发送路由器选项和无类静态路由选项，并应在路由器选项和无类静态路由选项中指定默认路由器。
When a DHCP client requests the Classless Static Routes option and also requests either or both of the Router option and the Static Routes option, and the DHCP server is sending Classless Static Routes options to that client, the server SHOULD NOT include the Router or Static Routes options.
当DHCP客户端请求无类静态路由选项，并且同时请求路由器选项和静态路由选项中的一个或两个，并且DHCP服务器正在向该客户端发送无类静态路由选项时，服务器不应包括路由器或静态路由选项。
Security Considerations
安全考虑
Potential exposures to attack in the DHCP protocol are discussed in section 7 of the DHCP protocol specification [3] and in Authentication for DHCP Messages [11].
DHCP协议规范[3]第7节和DHCP消息的身份验证[11]中讨论了DHCP协议中可能存在的攻击风险。
The Classless Static Routes option can be used to misdirect network traffic by providing incorrect IP addresses for routers. This can be either a Denial of Service attack, where the router IP address given is simply invalid, or can be used to set up a man-in-the-middle
无类静态路由选项可以通过为路由器提供不正确的IP地址来误导网络流量。这可能是一种拒绝服务攻击，其中给定的路由器IP地址完全无效，或者可以用来设置中间人
attack by providing the IP address of a potential snooper. This is not a new problem - the existing Router and Static Routes options defined in RFC 2132 [4] exhibit the same vulnerability.
通过提供潜在窥探者的IP地址进行攻击。这不是一个新问题-RFC 2132[4]中定义的现有路由器和静态路由选项显示出相同的漏洞。
IANA Considerations
IANA考虑
This DHCP option has been allocated the option code 121 in the list of DHCP option codes that the IANA maintains.
此DHCP选项已分配IANA维护的DHCP选项代码列表中的选项代码121。
Normative References
规范性引用文件
[1] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[1] Postel，J.，“互联网协议”，STD 5，RFC 7911981年9月。
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[3] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997.
[3] Droms，R.，“动态主机配置协议”，RFC 2131，1997年3月。
[4] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[4] Alexander，S.和R.Droms，“DHCP选项和BOOTP供应商扩展”，RFC 21321997年3月。
[5] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396, November 2002.
[5] Lemon，T.和S.Cheshire，“动态主机配置协议（DHCPv4）中的长选项编码”，RFC 3396，2002年11月。
Informative References
资料性引用
[6] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, September 1981.
[6] Postel，J.，“互联网控制消息协议”，STD 5，RFC 792，1981年9月。
[7] Mogul, J. and J. Postel, "Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure", STD 5, RFC 950, August 1985.
[7] Mogul，J.和J.Postel，“互联网标准子网程序”，STD 5，RFC 950，1985年8月。
[8] Hedrick, C., "Routing Information Protocol", RFC 1058, June 1988.
[8] Hedrick，C.，“路由信息协议”，RFC 1058，1988年6月。
[9] Deering, S., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256, September 1991.
[9] Deering，S.，“ICMP路由器发现消息”，RFC 1256，1991年9月。
[10] Pummill, T. and B. Manning, "Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4", RFC 1878, December 1995.
[10] Pummill，T.和B.Manning，“IPv4的可变长度子网表”，RFC 18781995年12月。
[11] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.
[11] Droms，R.和W.Arbaugh，“DHCP消息的身份验证”，RFC31182001年6月。
Intellectual Property Statement
知识产权声明
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何努力来确定任何此类权利。有关IETF在标准跟踪和标准相关文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP-11。可从IETF秘书处获得可供发布的权利声明副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果。
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涉及实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送给IETF执行董事。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Ted Lemon Nominum, Inc. 2385 Bay Road Redwood City, CA 94063
Ted Lemon Nominum，Inc.加利福尼亚州红木市海湾路2385号，邮编94063
EMail: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
EMail: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
Stuart Cheshire Apple Computer, Inc. 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino California 95014 USA
Stuart Cheshire苹果电脑有限公司美国加利福尼亚州库珀蒂诺无限环路95014
Phone: +1 408 974 3207
EMail: rfc@stuartcheshire.org
Phone: +1 408 974 3207
EMail: rfc@stuartcheshire.org
Bernie Volz Ericsson 959 Concord Street Framingham, MA, 01701
伯尼·沃兹·爱立信，马萨诸塞州弗雷明翰康科德街959号，邮编01701
Phone: +1 508 875 3162
EMail: bernie.volz@ericsson.com
Phone: +1 508 875 3162
EMail: bernie.volz@ericsson.com
Full Copyright Statement
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。