RFC 4048: RFC 1888 Is Obsolete 中文翻译

URL : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4048
标题 : RFC 4048
翻译类型 : 自动生成

Network Working Group                                       B. Carpenter
Request for Comments: 4048                                           IBM
Category: Informational                                       April 2005

Network Working Group                                       B. Carpenter
Request for Comments: 4048                                           IBM
Category: Informational                                       April 2005

RFC 1888 Is Obsolete

RFC1888已经过时了

Status of This Memo

关于下段备忘

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。

版权公告

Abstract

摘要

This document recommends that RFC 1888, on Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Network Service Access Points (NSAPs) and IPv6, be reclassified as Historic, as most of it has no further value, apart from one section, which is faulty.

本文件建议将关于开放系统互连（OSI）网络服务接入点（NSAP）和IPv6的RFC 1888重新分类为历史版本，因为除了一个有缺陷的部分外，大部分内容没有其他价值。

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction .................................................. 1
   2.  Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 1888 ......................... 2
   3.  Security Considerations ....................................... 2
   4.  IANA Considerations ........................................... 2
   5.  Acknowledgements .............................................. 2
   6.  Normative References .......................................... 3
   Author's Address .................................................. 3
   Full Copyright Statement .......................................... 4

   1.  Introduction .................................................. 1
   2.  Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 1888 ......................... 2
   3.  Security Considerations ....................................... 2
   4.  IANA Considerations ........................................... 2
   5.  Acknowledgements .............................................. 2
   6.  Normative References .......................................... 3
   Author's Address .................................................. 3
   Full Copyright Statement .......................................... 4

1. Introduction

1. 介绍

[RFC1888] was published as an Experimental RFC in 1996, at an early stage in the development of IPv6, when it appeared important to consider usage of Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) addressing for IPv6. In Sections 3 through 5, it defines mappings of certain OSI Network Service Access Point (NSAP) addresses inside IPv6 addresses, and how to carry arbitrary NSAP addresses as IPv6 destination options. However, it also contains significant "health warnings" about the difficulty of routing packets in the global Internet using such addresses. As far as is known to the IETF, these address mappings have never been seriously used and are not supported by IPv6 implementations. Furthermore, the deployment of OSI solutions is not

[RFC188]在1996中作为实验RFC发布，在IPv6发展的早期阶段，当它显得重要的是考虑使用IPv6的开放系统互连（OSI）寻址。在第3节到第5节中，它定义了IPv6地址中某些OSI网络服务接入点（NSAP）地址的映射，以及如何携带任意NSAP地址作为IPv6目标选项。然而，它也包含关于在全球互联网上使用这些地址路由数据包的困难的重要“健康警告”。据IETF所知，这些地址映射从未被认真使用过，IPv6实现也不支持。此外，OSI解决方案的部署也不完善

sufficiently widespread that any change in this situation can be expected.

足够广泛，可以预期这种情况会发生任何变化。

Additionally, Section 6 of [RFC1888] specifies a mapping of IPv6 addresses inside OSI NSAP addresses. This mapping has recently aroused some interest: for example, to allow IP addresses to be expressed in an Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) context. Unfortunately, Section 6 of [RFC1888] contains two errors in its usage of OSI Initial Domain Part (IDP) format:

此外，[RFC1888]第6节规定了OSI NSAP地址内IPv6地址的映射。这种映射最近引起了一些兴趣：例如，允许在异步传输模式（ATM）上下文中表示IP地址。不幸的是，[RFC1888]第6节在使用OSI初始域部分（IDP）格式时包含两个错误：

* first, the text refers to the Internet Code Point (ICP) as a single octet, whereas it is correctly a 16-bit field;

* 首先，文本将互联网编码点（ICP）称为单个八位字节，而实际上它是一个16位字段；

* second, the text states that "[t]he first three octets are an IDP in binary format", but [NSAP] states in section A.5.2.1 that "[t]he abstract syntax for the IDI is decimal digits" and specifies a preferred binary encoding in section A.5.3 "using a semi-octet to represent the value of each decimal digit ... , yielding a value in the range 0000-1001".

* 第二，文本规定“前三个八位字节是二进制格式的IDP”，但[NSAP]在第A.5.2.1节中规定“IDI的抽象语法是十进制数字”，并在第A.5.3节中规定了首选的二进制编码“使用半八位字节表示每个十进制数字的值…”，产生0000-1001”范围内的值。

2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 1888

2. 重新分类RFC 1888的建议

Due to the lack of use of one of the mappings, and to the errors in the documentation of the other, this document recommends that the IESG reclassify [RFC1888] as Historic.

由于缺少使用其中一个映射，以及另一个映射的文档中存在错误，本文档建议IESG将[RFC1888]重新分类为历史。

It is assumed that parties who wish to use a mapping of IPv6 addresses inside OSI NSAP addresses will correct, augment, and resubmit Section 6 of [RFC1888] as a separate document.

假设希望在OSI NSAP地址内使用IPv6地址映射的各方将更正、扩充并作为单独文件重新提交[RFC1888]第6节。

3. Security Considerations

3. 安全考虑

This recommendation has no known impact on the security of the Internet.

这项建议对互联网的安全没有已知的影响。

4. IANA Considerations

4. IANA考虑

IANA has marked the IPv6 address prefix 0000 001, reserved for NSAP Allocation in [RFC3513], simply as Reserved.

IANA已将[RFC3513]中为NSAP分配保留的IPv6地址前缀0000 001标记为保留。

IANA is holding the registry for "OSI NSAPA Internet Code Point" implied by Section 6 of [RFC1888] in abeyance until a replacement for that Section is approved for publication.

IANA暂时搁置[RFC1888]第6节所暗示的“OSI NSAPA互联网代码点”的注册，直到该节的替代品被批准发布。

5. Acknowledgements

5. 致谢

Scott Brim and Arun Pandey made useful comments on this document.

斯科特·布里姆和阿伦·潘迪对这份文件作了有益的评论。

6. Normative References

6. 规范性引用文件

[RFC1888] Bound, J., Carpenter, B., Harrington, D., Houldsworth, J., and A. Lloyd, "OSI NSAPs and IPv6", RFC 1888, August 1996.

[RFC1888]Bound，J.，Carpenter，B.，Harrington，D.，Houldsworth，J.，和A.Lloyd，“OSI NSAP和IPv6”，RFC 18881996年8月。

[RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

[RFC3513]Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“互联网协议版本6（IPv6）寻址体系结构”，RFC 3513，2003年4月。

[NSAP] International Organization for Standardization, "Information technology -- Open Systems Interconnection -- Network service definition", ISO/IEC 8348:2002, 2002.

[NSAP]国际标准化组织，“信息技术——开放系统互连——网络服务定义”，ISO/IEC 8348:2002，2002。

Author's Address

作者地址

Brian E. Carpenter IBM Zurich Research Laboratory Saeumerstrasse 4 / Postfach 8803 Rueschlikon Switzerland

Brian E.Carpenter IBM苏黎世研究实验室Saeumerstrasse 4/Postfach 8803瑞士鲁埃施利肯

   EMail: brc@zurich.ibm.com

   EMail: brc@zurich.ibm.com

Full Copyright Statement

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.

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。