Network Working Group P. Nesser, II
Request for Comments: 3793 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational A. Bergstrom, Ed.
Ostfold University College
May 2004
Network Working Group P. Nesser, II
Request for Comments: 3793 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational A. Bergstrom, Ed.
Ostfold University College
May 2004
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
当前部署的IETF子IP区域标准跟踪和实验文档中IPv4地址的调查
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 (2004). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2004年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently deployed IETF Sub-IP Area documented standards. In order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.
本文档旨在记录当前部署的IETF子IP区域文件化标准中IPv4地址的所有使用情况。为了成功地从全IPv4 Internet过渡到全IPv6 Internet，将采取许多临时步骤。其中一个步骤是发展具有IPv4依赖关系的当前协议。人们希望这些协议（及其实现）将被重新设计为与网络地址无关，但如果不能做到这一点，则至少会同时支持IPv4和IPv6。为此，将调查所有标准（完整、草案和提议）以及实验性RFC，并记录任何相关性。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Document Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Full Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Summary of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.01. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.02. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.03. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.04. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Document Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Full Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Summary of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.01. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.02. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.03. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.04. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the information in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Operations & Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
本文档是旨在记录IETF标准中IPv4地址的所有使用情况的文档集的一部分。为了使信息具有可管理的形式，已将其分为符合当前IETF领域（应用、互联网、运营与管理、路由、安全、子IP和传输）的7个文件。
For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1].
有关完整的介绍，请参见介绍[1]。
The rest of the document sections are described below.
文档的其余部分如下所述。
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around) RFC 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed.
第3节、第4节、第5节和第6节分别描述了完整、草案和拟议标准以及实验RFC的原始分析。依次讨论每个RFC，从RFC 1开始，到RFC 3100结束。每个RFC的注释本质上是“原始”的。也就是说，每个RFC都是在真空中讨论的，所讨论的问题不会“向前看”，看问题是否已经解决。
Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated.
第7节是对第3、4、5和6节中提供的数据的分析。正是在这里，所有的结果都被视为一个整体，并且在以后的RFC中解决的问题被关联起来。
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely implemented and used throughout the Internet.
完整的互联网标准（通常简称为“标准”）是在整个互联网上广泛实施和使用的完全成熟的协议规范。
There are no full standards within the scope of this document.
本文件范围内没有完整的标准。
Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually quite mature and widely used.
标准草案代表IETF中倒数第二个标准级别。只有当存在多个独立的、可互操作的实现时，协议才能实现标准草案。标准草案通常是相当成熟和广泛使用的。
There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
本文件范围内没有标准草案。
Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this discussion.
拟议标准是介绍性文件。即使是单个实现也没有要求。在许多情况下，在IETF标准过程中从未实施或推进提议。因此，它们通常只是向互联网社区提出的想法。有时缺陷会暴露出来，或者是许多相互竞争的问题解决方案之一。在后一种情况下，不进行讨论，因为这不符合本次讨论的目的。
5.01. RFC 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
5.01. RFC 3031多协议标签交换体系结构（MPLS）
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
此规范中不存在IPv4依赖项。
5.02. RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding
5.02. RFC 3032 MPLS标签堆栈编码
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
此规范支持IPv4和IPv6，无需更改。
5.03. RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification
5.03. RFC 3034帧中继网络标签切换的使用规范
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
此规范中不存在IPv4依赖项。
5.04. RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching
5.04. 使用LDP和ATM VC交换的RFC 3035 MPLS
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
此规范中不存在IPv4依赖项。
5.05. RFC 3036 LDP Specification
5.05. RFC 3036 LDP规范
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
此规范支持IPv4和IPv6，无需更改。
5.06. RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP
5.06. LDP的ATM链路上的RFC 3038 VCID通知
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
此规范中不存在IPv4依赖项。
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem.
实验性RFC通常定义在Internet上没有大规模实现或使用的协议。它们通常在性质上是恰当的，或者在有限的领域中使用。为了允许潜在的互操作性或其他一些潜在的有用场景，它们被记录到互联网社区中。在少数情况下，它们被作为主流解决方案的替代方案来解决一个公认的问题。
6.01. RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism
6.01. RFC 3063 MPLS环路预防机制
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
此规范中不存在IPv4依赖项。
In the initial survey of RFCs 0 positives were identified out of a total of 7, broken down as follows:
在对RFC的初步调查中，在总共7个样本中发现了0个阳性样本，细分如下：
Standards: 0 out of 0 or 0.00% Draft Standards: 0 out of 0 or 0.00% Proposed Standards: 0 out of 6 or 0.00% Experimental RFCs: 0 out of 1 or 0.00%
标准：0分之0或0.00%标准草案：0分之0或0.00%建议标准：6分之0或0.00%实验RFC：1分之0或0.00%
Of those identified many require no action because they document outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not updated. The remaining instances are documented below.
在已确定的协议中，许多协议不需要采取行动，因为它们记录了过时和未使用的协议，而其他协议则记录了相关工作组正在积极更新的协议。此外，还有许多应更新的标准实例，但如果不更新，则不会造成任何运营影响。其余实例记录如下。
7.01. Standards
7.01. 标准
There are no standards within the scope of this document.
本文件范围内没有任何标准。
7.02. Draft Standards
7.02. 标准草案
There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
本文件范围内没有标准草案。
7.03. Proposed Standards
7.03. 拟议标准
There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this document.
本文件中没有建议的标准。
7.04. Experimental RFCs
7.04. 实验RFC
There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this document.
本文件中没有建议的实验标准。
This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not have security considerations in itself.
本备忘录审查了规范的IPv6准备情况；这本身没有安全考虑。
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of this document.
作者希望感谢互联网协会在本文件的研究和制作过程中提供的支持。
Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thank his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
此外，作者Philip J.Nesser II想感谢他的合作伙伴Wendy M.Nesser。
The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this document.
编辑Andreas Bergstrom感谢Pekka Savola为本文件的编辑提供指导和收集意见。
[1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", RFC 3789, May 2004.
[1] Nesser，II，P.和A.Bergstrom，编辑，“当前部署的IETF标准中IPv4地址调查简介”，RFC 3789，2004年5月。
Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or suggestions at:
如有任何问题、意见或建议，请联系作者：
Philip J. Nesser II Principal Nesser & Nesser Consulting 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 Kirkland, WA 98034
Philip J.Nesser II首席Nesser&Nesser Consulting 13501东北第100大道，华盛顿州柯克兰市5202号，邮编：98034
Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 48
EMail: phil@nesser.com
Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 48
EMail: phil@nesser.com
Andreas Bergstrom, Editor Ostfold University College Rute 503 Buer N-1766 Halden Norway
Andreas Bergstrom，编辑奥斯特福德大学学院Rute 503 Buer N-1766挪威哈尔登
EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2004年）。本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，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。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权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，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
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。