Network Working Group M. Duke
Request for Comments: 4614 Boeing Phantom Works
Category: Informational R. Braden
USC Information Sciences Institute
W. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems
E. Blanton
Purdue University Computer Science
September 2006
Network Working Group M. Duke
Request for Comments: 4614 Boeing Phantom Works
Category: Informational R. Braden
USC Information Sciences Institute
W. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems
E. Blanton
Purdue University Computer Science
September 2006
A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents
传输控制协议（TCP）规范文档的路线图
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。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
This document contains a "roadmap" to the Requests for Comments (RFC) documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the RFC series. This serves as a guide and quick reference for both TCP implementers and other parties who desire information contained in the TCP-related RFCs.
本文件包含与互联网传输控制协议（TCP）相关的征求意见（RFC）文件的“路线图”。本路线图简要概述了定义TCP的文档以及RFC系列中积累的各种TCP扩展。这为TCP实施者和其他希望获得TCP相关RFC中包含的信息的各方提供了指南和快速参考。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Basic Functionality .............................................4
3. Recommended Enhancements ........................................6
3.1. Congestion Control and Loss Recovery Extensions ............7
3.2. SACK-Based Loss Recovery and Congestion Control ............8
3.3. Dealing with Forged Segments ...............................9
4. Experimental Extensions ........................................10
5. Historic Extensions ............................................13
6. Support Documents ..............................................14
6.1. Foundational Works ........................................15
6.2. Difficult Network Environments ............................16
6.3. Implementation Advice .....................................19
6.4. Management Information Bases ..............................20
6.5. Tools and Tutorials .......................................22
6.6. Case Studies ..............................................22
7. Undocumented TCP Features ......................................23
8. Security Considerations ........................................24
9. Acknowledgments ................................................24
10. Informative References ........................................25
10.1. Basic Functionality ......................................25
10.2. Recommended Enhancements .................................25
10.3. Experimental Extensions ..................................26
10.4. Historic Extensions ......................................27
10.5. Support Documents ........................................28
10.6. Informative References Outside the RFC Series ............31
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Basic Functionality .............................................4
3. Recommended Enhancements ........................................6
3.1. Congestion Control and Loss Recovery Extensions ............7
3.2. SACK-Based Loss Recovery and Congestion Control ............8
3.3. Dealing with Forged Segments ...............................9
4. Experimental Extensions ........................................10
5. Historic Extensions ............................................13
6. Support Documents ..............................................14
6.1. Foundational Works ........................................15
6.2. Difficult Network Environments ............................16
6.3. Implementation Advice .....................................19
6.4. Management Information Bases ..............................20
6.5. Tools and Tutorials .......................................22
6.6. Case Studies ..............................................22
7. Undocumented TCP Features ......................................23
8. Security Considerations ........................................24
9. Acknowledgments ................................................24
10. Informative References ........................................25
10.1. Basic Functionality ......................................25
10.2. Recommended Enhancements .................................25
10.3. Experimental Extensions ..................................26
10.4. Historic Extensions ......................................27
10.5. Support Documents ........................................28
10.6. Informative References Outside the RFC Series ............31
A correct and efficient implementation of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is a critical part of the software of most Internet hosts. As TCP has evolved over the years, many distinct documents have become part of the accepted standard for TCP. At the same time, a large number of more experimental modifications to TCP have also been published in the RFC series, along with informational notes, case studies, and other advice.
传输控制协议（TCP）的正确有效实施是大多数Internet主机软件的关键部分。随着TCP多年来的发展，许多不同的文档已经成为TCP公认标准的一部分。与此同时，RFC系列中还发布了大量对TCP的更多实验性修改，以及信息说明、案例研究和其他建议。
As an introduction to newcomers and an attempt to organize the plethora of information for old hands, this document contains a "roadmap" to the TCP-related RFCs. It provides a brief summary of the RFC documents that define TCP. This should provide guidance to implementers on the relevance and significance of the standards-track extensions, informational notes, and best current practices that relate to TCP.
作为对新来者的介绍，以及为老手组织大量信息的尝试，本文档包含TCP相关RFC的“路线图”。它简要概述了定义TCP的RFC文档。这应该为实施者提供有关标准跟踪扩展、信息说明和与TCP相关的最佳当前实践的相关性和重要性的指导。
This document is not an update of RFC 1122 and is not a rigorous standard for what needs to be implemented in TCP. This document is merely an informational roadmap that captures, organizes, and summarizes most of the RFC documents that a TCP implementer, experimenter, or student should be aware of. Particular comments or broad categorizations that this document makes about individual mechanisms and behaviors are not to be taken as definitive, nor should the content of this document alone influence implementation decisions.
本文档不是RFC 1122的更新，也不是TCP中需要实现的严格标准。本文档仅仅是一个信息路线图，它捕获、组织和总结了TCP实施者、实验者或学生应该知道的大多数RFC文档。本文件对个别机制和行为所作的特定评论或广泛分类不应被视为确定的，也不应仅凭本文件的内容影响实施决策。
This roadmap includes a brief description of the contents of each TCP-related RFC. In some cases, we simply supply the abstract or a key summary sentence from the text as a terse description. In addition, a letter code after an RFC number indicates its category in the RFC series (see BCP 9 [RFC2026] for explanation of these categories):
该路线图包括每个TCP相关RFC内容的简要说明。在某些情况下，我们只是简单地从文本中提供摘要或关键摘要句子作为简短的描述。此外，RFC编号后的字母代码表示其在RFC系列中的类别（有关这些类别的解释，请参见BCP 9[RFC2026]）：
S - Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or Standard)
S-标准跟踪（建议标准、标准草案或标准）
E - Experimental
电子实验
B - Best Current Practice
B-最佳现行做法
I - Informational
I-信息
Note that the category of an RFC does not necessarily reflect its current relevance. For instance, RFC 2581 is nearly universally deployed although it is only a Proposed Standard. Similarly, some Informational RFCs contain significant technical proposals for changing TCP.
请注意，RFC的类别不一定反映其当前的相关性。例如，尽管RFC2581只是一个建议的标准，但它几乎已被普遍部署。类似地，一些信息RFC包含更改TCP的重要技术建议。
This roadmap is divided into four main sections. Section 2 lists the RFCs that describe absolutely required TCP behaviors for proper functioning and interoperability. Further RFCs that describe strongly encouraged, but non-essential, behaviors are listed in Section 3. Experimental extensions that are not yet standard practices, but that potentially could be in the future, are described in Section 4.
本路线图分为四个主要部分。第2节列出了RFC，这些RFC描述了正常运行和互操作性所必需的TCP行为。第3节列出了更多描述强烈鼓励但非必要行为的RFC。第4节描述了尚未成为标准实践，但在未来可能成为标准实践的实验扩展。
The reader will probably notice that these three sections are broadly equivalent to MUST/SHOULD/MAY specifications (per RFC 2119), and although the authors support this intuition, this document is merely descriptive; it does not represent a binding standards-track position. Individual implementers still need to examine the standards documents themselves to evaluate specific requirement levels.
读者可能会注意到，这三个部分大致等同于必须/应该/可能规范（根据RFC 2119），尽管作者支持这一直觉，但本文件仅为描述性；它不代表具有约束力的标准轨道位置。单个实现者仍然需要自己检查标准文档，以评估特定的需求级别。
A small number of older experimental extensions that have not been widely implemented, deployed, and used are noted in Section 5. Many other supporting documents that are relevant to the development, implementation, and deployment of TCP are described in Section 6. Within each section, RFCs are listed in the chronological order of their publication dates.
第5节中提到了少量尚未广泛实施、部署和使用的较老的实验性扩展。第6节介绍了与TCP的开发、实现和部署相关的许多其他支持文档。在每一节中，RFC按其出版日期的时间顺序列出。
A small number of fairly ubiquitous important implementation practices that are not currently documented in the RFC series are listed in Section 7.
第7节列出了RFC系列中目前未记录的少量相当普遍的重要实施实践。
A small number of documents compose the core specification of TCP. These define the required basic functionalities of TCP's header parsing, state machine, congestion control, and retransmission timeout computation. These base specifications must be correctly followed for interoperability.
少量文档构成了TCP的核心规范。这些定义了TCP头解析、状态机、拥塞控制和重传超时计算所需的基本功能。为了实现互操作性，必须正确遵循这些基本规范。
RFC 793 S: "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7 (September 1981)
RFC 793 S：“传输控制协议”，标准7（1981年9月）
This is the fundamental TCP specification document [RFC0793]. Written by Jon Postel as part of the Internet protocol suite's core, it describes the TCP packet format, the TCP state machine and event processing, and TCP's semantics for data transmission, reliability, flow control, multiplexing, and acknowledgment.
这是基本的TCP规范文档[RFC0793]。由Jon Postel编写，作为Internet协议套件核心的一部分，它描述了TCP数据包格式、TCP状态机和事件处理，以及数据传输、可靠性、流量控制、多路复用和确认的TCP语义。
Section 3.6 of RFC 793, describing TCP's handling of the IP precedence and security compartment, is mostly irrelevant today. RFC 2873 changed the IP precedence handling, and the security compartment portion of the API is no longer implemented or used. In addition, RFC 793 did not describe any congestion control mechanism. Otherwise, however, the majority of this document still accurately describes modern TCPs. RFC 793 is the last of a series of developmental TCP specifications, starting in the Internet Experimental Notes (IENs) and continuing in the RFC series.
RFC 793的第3.6节描述了TCP对IP优先级和安全分区的处理，这在今天几乎是无关紧要的。RFC2873更改了IP优先级处理，API的安全分区部分不再实现或使用。此外，RFC793没有描述任何拥塞控制机制。然而，除此之外，本文件的大部分内容仍然准确地描述了现代TCP。RFC793是一系列开发TCP规范中的最后一个，从Internet实验说明（IEN）开始，在RFC系列中继续。
RFC 1122 S: "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers" (October 1989)
RFC 1122 S：“互联网主机要求-通信层”（1989年10月）
This document [RFC1122] updates and clarifies RFC 793, fixing some specification bugs and oversights. It also explains some features such as keep-alives and Karn's and Jacobson's RTO estimation algorithms [KP87][Jac88][JK92]. ICMP interactions are mentioned, and some tips are given for efficient implementation. RFC 1122 is an Applicability Statement, listing the various features that MUST, SHOULD, MAY, SHOULD NOT, and MUST NOT be present in
本文档[RFC1122]更新并澄清了RFC 793，修复了一些规范错误和疏忽。它还解释了一些特性，如keep alives和Karn和Jacobson的RTO估计算法[KP87][Jac88][JK92]。文中提到了ICMP交互，并给出了一些有效实现的技巧。RFC1122是一个适用性声明，列出了必须、应该、可能、不应该和不应该出现在
standards-conforming TCP implementations. Unlike a purely informational "roadmap", this Applicability Statement is a standards document and gives formal rules for implementation.
符合标准的TCP实现。与纯粹的信息“路线图”不同，本适用性声明是一份标准文档，并给出了正式的实施规则。
RFC 2460 S: "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification (December 1998)
RFC 2460 S：“互联网协议，第6版（IPv6）规范（1998年12月）
This document [RFC2460] is of relevance to TCP because it defines how the pseudo-header for TCP's checksum computation is derived when 128-bit IPv6 addresses are used instead of 32-bit IPv4 addresses. Additionally, RFC 2675 describes TCP changes required to support IPv6 jumbograms.
本文档[RFC2460]与TCP相关，因为它定义了当使用128位IPv6地址而不是32位IPv4地址时，如何导出TCP校验和计算的伪报头。此外，RFC 2675描述了支持IPv6巨型程序所需的TCP更改。
RFC 2581 S: "TCP Congestion Control" (April 1999)
RFC 2581 S：“TCP拥塞控制”（1999年4月）
Although RFC 793 did not contain any congestion control mechanisms, today congestion control is a required component of TCP implementations. This document [RFC2581] defines the current versions of Van Jacobson's congestion avoidance and control mechanisms for TCP, based on his 1988 SIGCOMM paper [Jac88]. RFC 2001 was a conceptual precursor that was obsoleted by RFC 2581.
尽管RFC793不包含任何拥塞控制机制，但如今，拥塞控制是TCP实现的必需组件。本文件[RFC2581]基于其1988年的SIGCOMM论文[Jac88]，定义了Van Jacobson的TCP拥塞避免和控制机制的当前版本。RFC 2001是被RFC 2581淘汰的概念性先驱。
A number of behaviors that together constitute what the community refers to as "Reno TCP" are described in RFC 2581. The name "Reno" comes from the Net/2 release of the 4.3 BSD operating system. This is generally regarded as the least common denominator among TCP flavors currently found running on Internet hosts. Reno TCP includes the congestion control features of slow start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit, and fast recovery.
RFC 2581中描述了许多共同构成社区所称“雷诺TCP”的行为。“雷诺”这个名字来自4.3 BSD操作系统的Net/2版本。这通常被认为是目前在Internet主机上运行的TCP风格中最不常见的。Reno TCP具有慢启动、避免拥塞、快速重传和快速恢复的拥塞控制功能。
RFC 1122 mandates the implementation of a congestion control mechanism, and RFC 2581 details the currently accepted mechanism. RFC 2581 differs slightly from the other documents listed in this section, as it does not affect the ability of two TCP endpoints to communicate; however, congestion control remains a critical component of any widely deployed TCP implementation and is required for the avoidance of congestion collapse and to ensure fairness among competing flows.
RFC 1122要求实现拥塞控制机制，RFC 2581详细说明了当前接受的机制。RFC 2581与本节中列出的其他文档略有不同，因为它不影响两个TCP端点的通信能力；然而，拥塞控制仍然是任何广泛部署的TCP实现的关键组成部分，是避免拥塞崩溃和确保竞争流之间公平性所必需的。
RFC 2873 S: "TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field" (June 2000)
RFC 2873 S：“IPv4优先字段的TCP处理”（2000年6月）
This document [RFC2873] removes from the TCP specification all processing of the precedence bits of the TOS byte of the IP header. This resolves a conflict over the use of these bits between RFC 793 and Differentiated Services [RFC2474].
本文件[RFC2873]从TCP规范中删除了对IP报头TOS字节优先位的所有处理。这解决了RFC 793和差异化服务[RFC2474]之间使用这些位的冲突。
RFC 2988 S: "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer" (November 2000)
RFC 2988 S：“计算TCP的重传计时器”（2000年11月）
Abstract: "This document defines the standard algorithm that Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) senders are required to use to compute and manage their retransmission timer. It expands on the discussion in section 4.2.3.1 of RFC 1122 and upgrades the requirement of supporting the algorithm from a SHOULD to a MUST." [RFC2988]
摘要：“本文件定义了传输控制协议（TCP）发送方计算和管理其重传计时器所需使用的标准算法。它扩展了RFC 1122第4.2.3.1节中的讨论，并将支持算法的要求从“应该”升级为“必须”。[RFC2988]
This section describes recommended TCP modifications that improve performance and security. RFCs 1323 and 3168 represent fundamental changes to the protocol. RFC 1323, based on RFCs 1072 and 1185, allows better utilization of high bandwidth-delay product paths by providing some needed mechanisms for high-rate transfers. RFC 3168 describes a change to the Internet's architecture, whereby routers signal end-hosts of growing congestion levels and can do so before packet losses are forced. Section 3.1 lists improvements in the congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms specified in RFC 2581. Section 3.2 describes further refinements that make use of selective acknowledgments. Section 3.3 deals with the problem of preventing forged segments.
本节介绍改进性能和安全性的建议TCP修改。RFC 1323和3168代表了协议的根本性变化。基于RFC 1072和1185的RFC 1323通过为高速传输提供一些必要的机制，允许更好地利用高带宽延迟乘积路径。RFC3168描述了互联网体系结构的一个变化，路由器向终端主机发送拥塞水平不断上升的信号，并且可以在数据包丢失之前发送信号。第3.1节列出了RFC 2581中规定的拥塞控制和丢失恢复机制的改进。第3.2节描述了利用选择性确认的进一步改进。第3.3节涉及防止锻造节段的问题。
RFC 1323 S: "TCP Extensions for High Performance" (May 1992)
RFC 1323 S：“高性能TCP扩展”（1992年5月）
This document [RFC1323] defines TCP extensions for window scaling, timestamps, and protection against wrapped sequence numbers, for efficient and safe operation over paths with large bandwidth-delay products. These extensions are commonly found in currently used systems; however, they may require manual tuning and configuration. One issue in this specification that is still under discussion concerns a modification to the algorithm for estimating the mean RTT when timestamps are used.
本文档[RFC1323]定义了用于窗口缩放、时间戳和防止包装序列号的TCP扩展，以便在具有大带宽延迟产品的路径上高效安全地运行。这些扩展通常存在于当前使用的系统中；但是，它们可能需要手动调整和配置。本规范中仍在讨论的一个问题涉及对使用时间戳时估计平均RTT的算法的修改。
RFC 2675 S: "IPv6 Jumbograms" (August 1999)
RFC 2675 S：“IPv6巨型程序”（1999年8月）
IPv6 supports longer datagrams than were allowed in IPv4. These are known as Jumbograms, and use with TCP has necessitated changes to the handling of TCP's MSS and Urgent fields (both 16 bits). This document [RFC2675] explains those changes. Although it describes changes to basic header semantics, these changes should only affect the use of very large segments, such as IPv6 jumbograms, which are currently rarely used in the general Internet. Supporting the behavior described in this document does not affect interoperability with other TCP implementations when IPv4 or non-jumbogram IPv6 is used. This document states that jumbograms are to only be used when it can be guaranteed that all
IPv6支持比IPv4允许的更长的数据报。这些被称为巨型程序，与TCP一起使用需要更改TCP的MSS和紧急字段（均为16位）的处理。本文档[RFC2675]解释了这些更改。虽然它描述了对基本报头语义的更改，但这些更改只会影响非常大的段的使用，例如IPv6巨型程序，目前在通用Internet中很少使用。当使用IPv4或非巨型IPv6时，支持本文档中描述的行为不会影响与其他TCP实现的互操作性。本文件规定，只有在能够保证所有
receiving nodes, including each router in the end-to-end path, will support jumbograms. If even a single node that does not support jumbograms is attached to a local network, then no host on that network may use jumbograms. This explains why jumbogram use has been rare, and why this document is considered a performance optimization and not part of TCP over IPv6's basic functionality.
接收节点，包括端到端路径中的每个路由器，将支持巨型程序。如果连不支持巨型程序的单个节点都连接到本地网络，则该网络上的任何主机都不能使用巨型程序。这解释了为什么很少使用巨型程序，以及为什么本文档被视为性能优化，而不是TCP over IPv6的基本功能的一部分。
RFC 3168 S: "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP" (September 2001)
RFC 3168 S：“向IP添加显式拥塞通知（ECN）”（2001年9月）
This document [RFC3168] defines a means for end hosts to detect congestion before congested routers are forced to discard packets. Although congestion notification takes place at the IP level, ECN requires support at the transport level (e.g., in TCP) to echo the bits and adapt the sending rate. This document updates RFC 793 to define two previously unused flag bits in the TCP header for ECN support. RFC 3540 provides a supplementary (experimental) means for more secure use of ECN, and RFC 2884 provides some sample results from using ECN.
本文档[RFC3168]定义了终端主机在拥塞路由器被迫丢弃数据包之前检测拥塞的方法。虽然拥塞通知发生在IP级别，但ECN需要在传输级别（例如TCP）上提供支持，以回送位并调整发送速率。本文档更新RFC 793，在TCP头中定义两个以前未使用的标志位，以支持ECN。RFC3540提供了一种更安全地使用ECN的补充（实验）方法，RFC2884提供了使用ECN的一些示例结果。
Two of the most important aspects of TCP are its congestion control and loss recovery features. TCP traditionally treats lost packets as indicating congestion-related loss, and cannot distinguish between congestion-related loss and loss due to transmission errors. Even when ECN is in use, there is a rather intimate coupling between congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms. There are several extensions to both features, and more often than not, a particular extension applies to both. In this sub-section, we group enhancements to either congestion control, loss recovery, or both, which can be performed unilaterally; that is, without negotiating support between endpoints. In the next sub-section, we group the extensions that specify or rely on the SACK option, which must be negotiated bilaterally. TCP implementations should include the enhancements from both sub-sections so that TCP senders can perform well without regard to the feature sets of other hosts they connect to. For example, if SACK use is not successfully negotiated, a host should use the NewReno behavior as a fall back.
TCP最重要的两个方面是其拥塞控制和丢失恢复功能。传统上，TCP将丢失的数据包视为与拥塞相关的丢失，无法区分与拥塞相关的丢失和由于传输错误造成的丢失。即使在使用ECN时，拥塞控制和丢失恢复机制之间也存在着相当密切的耦合。这两个特性都有几个扩展，通常情况下，一个特定的扩展适用于这两个特性。在本小节中，我们将对拥塞控制、丢失恢复或两者的增强进行分组，这些增强可以单方执行；也就是说，不需要在端点之间协商支持。在下一小节中，我们将指定或依赖SACK选项的扩展分组，这些扩展必须通过双边协商。TCP实现应该包括这两个子部分的增强功能，以便TCP发送者能够在不考虑其连接的其他主机的功能集的情况下良好地执行。例如，如果SACK使用未成功协商，主机应使用NewReno行为作为回退。
RFC 3042 S: "Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit" (January 2001)
RFC 3042 S：“使用有限传输增强TCP的丢失恢复”（2001年1月）
Abstract: "This document proposes Limited Transmit, a new Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) mechanism that can be used to more effectively recover lost segments when a connection's congestion window is small, or when a large number of segments are lost in a single transmission window." [RFC3042] Tests from 2004 showed that Limited Transmit was deployed in roughly one third of the web servers tested [MAF04].
摘要：“本文件提出了有限传输，这是一种新的传输控制协议（TCP）机制，可用于在连接拥塞窗口较小或单个传输窗口中丢失大量段时更有效地恢复丢失的段。”[RFC3042]2004年的测试表明，在测试的web服务器中，大约有三分之一部署了有限传输[MAF04]。
RFC 3390 S: "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" (October 2002)
RFC 3390 S：“增加TCP的初始窗口”（2002年10月）
This document [RFC3390] updates RFC 2581 to permit an initial TCP window of three or four segments during the slow-start phase, depending on the segment size.
本文档[RFC3390]更新了RFC 2581，以允许在慢启动阶段根据段大小设置三个或四个段的初始TCP窗口。
RFC 3782 S: "The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm" (April 2004)
RFC 3782 S：“NewReno对TCP快速恢复算法的修改”（2004年4月）
This document [RFC3782] specifies a modification to the standard Reno fast recovery algorithm, whereby a TCP sender can use partial acknowledgments to make inferences determining the next segment to send in situations where SACK would be helpful but isn't available. Although it is only a slight modification, the NewReno behavior can make a significant difference in performance when multiple segments are lost from a single window of data.
本文件[RFC3782]规定了对标准雷诺快速恢复算法的修改，其中TCP发送方可以使用部分确认来推断在SACK可能有用但不可用的情况下确定下一个要发送的段。尽管这只是一个小小的修改，但当多个数据段从单个数据窗口丢失时，NewReno行为可以在性能上产生显著的差异。
The base TCP specification in RFC 793 provided only a simple cumulative acknowledgment mechanism. However, a selective acknowledgment (SACK) mechanism provides performance improvement in the presence of multiple packet losses from the same flight, more than outweighing the modest increase in complexity. A TCP should be expected to implement SACK; however, SACK is a negotiated option and is only used if support is advertised by both sides of a connection.
RFC793中的基本TCP规范只提供了一种简单的累积确认机制。然而，选择性确认（SACK）机制在同一航班出现多个数据包丢失时提供了性能改进，超过了复杂性的适度增加。TCP应该实现SACK；但是，SACK是一种协商选项，只有在连接双方都公布支持时才使用。
RFC 2018 S: "TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options" (October 1996)
RFC 2018 S：“TCP选择性确认选项”（1996年10月）
This document [RFC2018] defines the basic selective acknowledgment (SACK) mechanism for TCP.
本文档[RFC2018]定义了TCP的基本选择性确认（SACK）机制。
RFC 2883 S: "An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for TCP" (July 2000)
RFC 2883 S：“TCP选择性确认（SACK）选项的扩展”（2000年7月）
This document [RFC2883] extends RFC 2018 to cover the case of acknowledging duplicate segments.
本文件[RFC2883]扩展了RFC 2018，以涵盖确认重复段的情况。
RFC 3517 S: "A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP" (April 2003)
RFC 3517 S：“基于保守选择确认（SACK）的TCP丢失恢复算法”（2003年4月）
This document [RFC3517] describes a relatively sophisticated algorithm that a TCP sender can use for loss recovery when SACK reports more than one segment lost from a single flight of data. Although support for the exchange of SACK information is widely implemented, not all implementations use an algorithm as sophisticated as that described in RFC 3517.
本文档[RFC3517]描述了一种相对复杂的算法，当SACK报告单个数据段丢失多个数据段时，TCP发送方可以使用该算法进行丢失恢复。尽管广泛实现了对SACK信息交换的支持，但并非所有实现都使用RFC3517中描述的算法。
By default, TCP lacks any cryptographic structures to differentiate legitimate segments and those spoofed from malicious hosts. Spoofing valid segments requires correctly guessing a number of fields. The documents in this sub-section describe ways to make that guessing harder, or to prevent it from being able to affect a connection negatively.
默认情况下，TCP缺少任何加密结构来区分合法段和来自恶意主机的伪造段。欺骗有效段需要正确猜测多个字段。本小节中的文档描述了使猜测更加困难或防止其对连接产生负面影响的方法。
The TCPM working group is currently in progress towards fully understanding and defining mechanisms for preventing spoofing attacks (including both spoofed TCP segments and ICMP datagrams). Some of the solutions being considered rely on TCP modifications, whereas others rely on security at lower layers (like IPsec) for protection.
TCPM工作组目前正在全面理解和定义防止欺骗攻击（包括欺骗TCP段和ICMP数据报）的机制。正在考虑的一些解决方案依赖于TCP修改，而其他解决方案则依赖于较低层（如IPsec）的安全性进行保护。
RFC 1948 I: "Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks" (May 1996)
RFC 1948 I：“防御序列号攻击”（1996年5月）
This document [RFC1948] describes the TCP vulnerability that allows an attacker to send forged TCP packets, by guessing the initial sequence number in the three-way handshake. Simple defenses against exploitation are then described. Some variation is implemented in most currently used operating systems.
本文档[RFC1948]描述了允许攻击者通过猜测三向握手中的初始序列号发送伪造TCP数据包的TCP漏洞。然后描述了针对攻击的简单防御。在大多数当前使用的操作系统中实现了一些变化。
RFC 2385 S: "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option" (August 1998)
RFC 2385 S：“通过TCP MD5签名选项保护BGP会话”（1998年8月）
From document: "This document describes current existing practice for securing BGP against certain simple attacks. It is understood to have security weaknesses against concerted attacks.
摘自文件：“本文件描述了保护BGP免受某些简单攻击的现行做法。据了解，在防范协同攻击方面存在安全弱点。
This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for BGP. It defines a new TCP option for carrying an MD5 digest in a TCP segment. This digest acts like a signature for that segment, incorporating information known only to the connection end points. Since BGP uses TCP as its transport, using this option in the way described in this paper significantly reduces the danger from certain security attacks on BGP." [RFC2385]
本备忘录描述了一个TCP扩展，以增强BGP的安全性。它定义了一个新的TCP选项，用于在TCP段中承载MD5摘要。此摘要的作用类似于该段的签名，包含仅对连接端点已知的信息。由于BGP使用TCP作为其传输，因此以本文所述的方式使用此选项可显著降低BGP受到某些安全攻击的危险。“[RFC2385]
TCP MD5 options are currently only used in very limited contexts, primarily for defending BGP exchanges between routers. Some deployment notes for those using TCP MD5 are found in the later RFC 3562, "Key Management Considerations for the TCP MD5 Signature Option" [RFC3562]. RFC 4278 deprecates the use of TCP MD5 outside BGP [RFC4278].
TCP MD5选项目前仅在非常有限的环境中使用，主要用于保护路由器之间的BGP交换。在稍后的RFC 3562“TCP MD5签名选项的密钥管理注意事项”[RFC3562]中可以找到使用TCP MD5的用户的一些部署说明。RFC 4278反对在BGP之外使用TCP MD5[RFC4278]。
The RFCs in this section are still experimental, but they may become proposed standards in the future. At least part of the reason that they are still experimental is to gain more wide-scale experience with them before a standards track decision is made. By their publication as experimental RFCs, it is hoped that the community of TCP researchers will analyze and test the contents of these RFCs. Although experimentation is encouraged, there is not yet formal consensus that these are fully logical and safe behaviors. Wide-scale deployment of implementations that use these features should be well thought-out in terms of consequences.
本节中的RFC仍处于试验阶段，但将来可能会成为建议的标准。至少部分原因是，他们仍然是实验性的，是为了在做出标准跟踪决策之前获得更广泛的经验。通过将其作为实验性RFC发表，希望TCP研究人员社区能够分析和测试这些RFC的内容。尽管鼓励进行实验，但尚未形成正式共识，即这些行为完全符合逻辑且安全。使用这些特性的实现的大规模部署应该考虑到后果。
RFC 2140 I: "TCP Control Block Interdependence" (April 1997)
RFC 2140 I：“TCP控制块相互依赖”（1997年4月）
This document [RFC2140] suggests how TCP connections between the same endpoints might share information, such as their congestion control state. To some degree, this is done in practice by a few operating systems; for example, Linux currently has a destination cache. Although this RFC is technically informational, the concepts it describes are in experimental use, so we include it in this section.
本文档[RFC2140]建议相同端点之间的TCP连接如何共享信息，例如它们的拥塞控制状态。在某种程度上，这实际上是由一些操作系统完成的；例如，Linux当前有一个目标缓存。尽管本RFC在技术上是信息性的，但它所描述的概念在实验中使用，因此我们将其包括在本节中。
A related proposal, the Congestion Manager, is specified in RFC 3124 [RFC3124]. The idea behind the Congestion Manager, moving congestion control outside of individual TCP connections, represents a modification to the core of TCP, which supports sharing information among TCP connections as well. Although a Proposed Standard, some pieces of the Congestion Manager support architecture have not been specified yet, and it has not achieved use or implementation beyond experimental stacks, so it is not listed among the standard TCP enhancements in this roadmap.
RFC 3124[RFC3124]中规定了一个相关的方案，即拥塞管理器。拥塞管理器背后的思想，将拥塞控制移到单个TCP连接之外，代表了对TCP核心的修改，它也支持在TCP连接之间共享信息。虽然是一个提议的标准，但拥塞管理器支持体系结构的某些部分尚未指定，并且它还没有实现实验堆栈之外的使用或实现，因此它没有在本路线图的标准TCP增强中列出。
RFC 2861 E: "TCP Congestion Window Validation" (June 2000)
RFC 2861 E：“TCP拥塞窗口验证”（2000年6月）
This document [RFC2861] suggests reducing the congestion window over time when no packets are flowing. This behavior is more aggressive than that specified in RFC 2581, which says that a TCP sender SHOULD set its congestion window to the initial window after an idle period of an RTO or greater.
本文档[RFC2861]建议在没有数据包流动的情况下，随着时间的推移减少拥塞窗口。此行为比RFC 2581中指定的行为更具攻击性，RFC 2581中规定TCP发送方应在RTO空闲时间或更长时间后将其拥塞窗口设置为初始窗口。
RFC 3465 E: "TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte Counting (ABC)" (February 2003)
RFC 3465 E：“具有适当字节计数（ABC）的TCP拥塞控制”（2003年2月）
This document [RFC3465] suggests that congestion control use the number of bytes acknowledged instead of the number of acknowledgments received. This has been implemented in Linux. The ABC mechanism behaves differently from the standard method when there is not a one-to-one relationship between data segments and acknowledgments. ABC still operates within the accepted guidelines, but is more robust to delayed ACKs and ACK-division [SCWA99][RFC3449].
本文档[RFC3465]建议拥塞控制使用已确认的字节数，而不是接收到的确认数。这已经在Linux中实现。当数据段和确认之间没有一对一关系时，ABC机制的行为与标准方法不同。ABC仍在公认的指导原则范围内运作，但对延迟ACK和ACK部门更为稳健[SCWA99][RFC3449]。
RFC 3522 E: "The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCP" (April 2003)
RFC 3522 E：“TCP的Eifel检测算法”（2003年4月）
The Eifel detection algorithm [RFC3522] allows a TCP sender to detect a posteriori whether it has entered loss recovery unnecessarily.
Eifel检测算法[RFC3522]允许TCP发送方检测后验概率是否不必要地进入了丢失恢复。
RFC 3540 E: "Robust Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) signaling with Nonces" (June 2003)
RFC 3540 E:“带有nonce的鲁棒显式拥塞通知（ECN）信令”（2003年6月）
This document [RFC3540] suggests a modified ECN to address security concerns and updates RFC 3168.
本文件[RFC3540]建议修改ECN以解决安全问题，并更新RFC 3168。
RFC 3649 E: "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows" (December 2003)
RFC 3649 E：“用于大拥塞窗口的高速TCP”（2003年12月）
This document [RFC3649] suggests a modification to TCP's steady-state behavior to use very large windows efficiently.
本文档[RFC3649]建议修改TCP的稳态行为，以便有效地使用非常大的窗口。
RFC 3708 E: "Using TCP Duplicate Selective Acknowledgement (DSACKs) and Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Duplicate Transmission Sequence Numbers (TSNs) to Detect Spurious Retransmissions" (February 2004)
RFC 3708 E：“使用TCP重复选择性确认（DSACKs）和流控制传输协议（SCTP）重复传输序列号（TSN）来检测虚假重传”（2004年2月）
Abstract: "TCP and Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) provide notification of duplicate segment receipt through Duplicate Selective Acknowledgement (DSACKs) and Duplicate Transmission Sequence Number (TSN) notification, respectively. This document presents conservative methods of using this information to identify unnecessary retransmissions for various applications." [RFC3708]
摘要：“TCP和流控制传输协议（SCTP）通过重复选择确认（DSACKs）和重复传输序列号（TSN）提供重复段接收通知分别通知。本文件介绍了使用此信息识别各种应用中不必要的重新传输的保守方法。“[RFC3708]
RFC 3742 E: "Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion Windows" (March 2004)
RFC 3742 E：“具有大拥塞窗口的TCP有限慢启动”（2004年3月）
This document [RFC3742] describes a more conservative slow-start behavior to prevent massive packet losses when a connection uses a very large window.
本文档[RFC3742]描述了一种更为保守的慢启动行为，以防止连接使用非常大的窗口时出现大量数据包丢失。
RFC 4015 S: "The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP" (February 2005)
RFC 4015 S：“TCP的Eifel响应算法”（2005年2月）
This document [RFC4015] describes the response portion of the Eifel algorithm, which can be used in conjunction with one of several methods of detecting when loss recovery has been spuriously entered, such as the Eifel detection algorithm in RFC 3522, the algorithm in RFC 3708, or F-RTO in RFC 4138.
本文件[RFC4015]描述了Eifel算法的响应部分，该部分可与错误输入损失恢复时的几种检测方法之一结合使用，如RFC 3522中的Eifel检测算法、RFC 3708中的算法或RFC 4138中的F-RTO。
Abstract: "Based on an appropriate detection algorithm, the Eifel response algorithm provides a way for a TCP sender to respond to a detected spurious timeout. It adapts the retransmission timer to avoid further spurious timeouts, and can avoid - depending on the detection algorithm - the often unnecessary go-back-N retransmits that would otherwise be sent. In addition, the Eifel response algorithm restores the congestion control state in such a way that packet bursts are avoided."
摘要：“基于适当的检测算法，Eifel响应算法为TCP发送方响应检测到的虚假超时提供了一种方法。它调整重传计时器以避免进一步的虚假超时，并且可以根据检测算法避免通常不必要的回退N重传，否则将被发送。此外，Eifel响应算法以避免分组突发的方式恢复拥塞控制状态。”
RFC 4015 is itself a Proposed Standard. The consensus of the TCPM working group was to place it in this section of the roadmap document due to three factors.
RFC 4015本身就是一个提议的标准。TCPM工作组的共识是，由于三个因素，将其放在路线图文件的本节中。
1. RFC 4015 operates on the output of a detection algorithm, for which there is currently no available mechanism on the standards track.
1. RFC 4015对检测算法的输出进行操作，目前在标准轨道上没有可用的机制。
2. The working group was not aware of any wide deployment and use of RFC 4015.
2. 工作组不知道RFC4015有任何广泛的部署和使用。
3. The consensus of the working group, after a discussion of the known Intellectual Property Rights claims on the techniques described in RFC 4015, identified this section of the roadmap as an appropriate location.
3. 在对RFC 4015中所述技术的已知知识产权要求进行讨论后，工作组达成共识，确定路线图的这一部分为适当位置。
RFC 4138 E: "Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol" (August 2005)
RFC 4138 E：“前向RTO恢复（F-RTO）：使用TCP和流控制传输协议检测虚假重传超时的算法”（2005年8月）
The F-RTO detection algorithm [RFC4138] provides another option for inferring spurious retransmission timeouts. Unlike some similar detection methods, F-RTO does not rely on the use of any TCP options.
F-RTO检测算法[RFC4138]为推断伪重传超时提供了另一个选项。与一些类似的检测方法不同，F-RTO不依赖于使用任何TCP选项。
The RFCs listed here define extensions that have thus far failed to arouse substantial interest from implementers, or that were found to be defective for general use.
这里列出的RFC定义了一些扩展，这些扩展到目前为止未能引起实现者的极大兴趣，或者被发现在一般使用中存在缺陷。
RFC 1106 "TCP Big Window and NAK Options" (June 1989): found defective
RFC 1106“TCP大窗口和NAK选项”（1989年6月）：发现有缺陷
This RFC [RFC1106] defined an alternative to the Window Scale option for using large windows and described the "negative acknowledgement" or NAK option. There is a comparison of NAK and SACK methods, and early discussion of TCP over satellite issues. RFC 1110 explains some problems with the approaches described in RFC 1106. The options described in this document have not been adopted by the larger community, although NAKs are used in the SCPS-TP adaptation of TCP for satellite and spacecraft use, developed by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS).
该RFC[RFC1106]定义了使用大窗口的窗口缩放选项的替代方案，并描述了“否定确认”或NAK选项。对NAK和SACK方法进行了比较，并对TCP over satellite问题进行了早期讨论。RFC 1110解释了RFC 1106中描述的方法的一些问题。本文件中描述的选项尚未被较大的社区采用，尽管NAK用于空间数据系统协商委员会（CCSDS）开发的卫星和航天器使用TCP的SCPS-TP适配。
RFC 1110 "A Problem with the TCP Big Window Option" (August 1989): deprecates RFC 1106
RFC1110“TCP大窗口选项的问题”（1989年8月）：反对RFC1106
Abstract: "The TCP Big Window option discussed in RFC 1106 will not work properly in an Internet environment which has both a high bandwidth * delay product and the possibility of disordering and duplicating packets. In such networks, the window size must not be increased without a similar increase in the sequence number space. Therefore, a different approach to big windows should be taken in the Internet." [RFC1110]
摘要：“RFC 1106中讨论的TCP大窗口选项在既有高带宽*延迟产品又有扰乱和复制数据包的可能性的互联网环境中无法正常工作。在这种网络中，如果序列号空间没有类似的增加，则窗口大小不得增加。因此，在互联网上应该采取不同的方法来打开大窗口。”[RFC1110]
RFC 1146 E "TCP Alternate Checksum Options" (March 1990): lack of interest
RFC 1146 E“TCP备用校验和选项”（1990年3月）：缺乏兴趣
This document [RFC1146] defined more robust TCP checksums than the 16-bit ones-complement in use today. A typographical error in RFC 1145 is fixed in RFC 1146; otherwise, the documents are the same.
本文档[RFC1146]定义了比目前使用的16位校验和更健壮的TCP校验和。RFC 1146修复了RFC 1145中的印刷错误；否则，文件是相同的。
RFC 1263 "TCP Extensions Considered Harmful" (October 1991) - lack of interest
RFC 1263“TCP扩展被认为有害”（1991年10月）-缺乏兴趣
This document [RFC1263] argues against "backwards compatible" TCP extensions. Specifically mentioned are several TCP enhancements that have been successful, including timestamps, window scaling, PAWS, and SACK. RFC 1263 presents an alternative approach called "protocol evolution", whereby several evolutionary versions of TCP would exist on hosts. These distinct TCP versions would represent upgrades to each other and could be header-incompatible.
本文档[RFC1263]反对“向后兼容”的TCP扩展。特别提到了几个已经成功的TCP增强，包括时间戳、窗口缩放、PAWS和SACK。RFC1263提出了一种称为“协议进化”的替代方法，即在主机上存在TCP的几个进化版本。这些不同的TCP版本将代表彼此的升级，并且可能不兼容。
Interoperability would be provided by having a virtualization layer select the right TCP version for a particular connection. This idea did not catch on with the community, although the type of extensions RFC 1263 specifically targeted as harmful did become popular.
通过让虚拟化层为特定连接选择正确的TCP版本，可以提供互操作性。虽然专门针对有害的RFC1263扩展类型确实变得流行起来，但这个想法并没有在社区中流行起来。
RFC 1379 I "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts" (November 1992): found defective
RFC 1379 I“扩展事务的TCP——概念”（1992年11月）：发现有缺陷
See RFC 1644.
见RFC1644。
RFC 1644 E "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification" (July 1994): found defective
RFC 1644 E“T/TCP——用于事务的TCP扩展功能规范”（1994年7月）：发现有缺陷
The inventors of TCP believed that cached connection state could have been used to eliminate TCP's 3-way handshake, to support two-packet request/response exchanges. RFCs 1379 [RFC1379] and 1644 [RFC1644] show that this is far from simple. Furthermore, T/TCP floundered on the ease of denial-of-service attacks that can result. One idea pioneered by T/TCP lives on in RFC 2140, in the sharing of state across connections.
TCP的发明者相信缓存连接状态可以用来消除TCP的三方握手，以支持两个数据包请求/响应交换。RFC 1379[RFC1379]和1644[RFC1644]表明，这远不是简单的。此外，T/TCP在可能导致的拒绝服务攻击的易受性上苦苦挣扎。T/TCP开创的一个想法存在于RFC2140中，即跨连接共享状态。
RFC 1693 E "An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service" (November 1994): lack of interest
RFC 1693 E“TCP的扩展：部分订购服务”（1994年11月）：缺乏兴趣
This document [RFC1693] defines a TCP extension for applications that do not care about the order in which application-layer objects are received. Examples are multimedia and database applications. In practice, these applications either accept the possible performance loss because of TCP's strict ordering or use more specialized transport protocols.
本文档[RFC1693]为不关心应用层对象接收顺序的应用程序定义了TCP扩展。例如多媒体和数据库应用程序。在实践中，这些应用程序要么接受由于TCP的严格排序而可能造成的性能损失，要么使用更专门的传输协议。
This section contains several classes of documents that do not necessarily define current protocol behaviors, but that are nevertheless of interest to TCP implementers. Section 6.1 describes several foundational RFCs that give modern readers a better understanding of the principles underlying TCP's behaviors and development over the years. The documents listed in Section 6.2 provide advice on using TCP in various types of network situations that pose challenges above those of typical wired links. Some implementation notes can be found in Section 6.3. The TCP Management Information Bases are described in Section 6.4. RFCs that describe tools for testing and debugging TCP implementations or that contain high-level tutorials on the protocol are listed Section 6.5, and Section 6.6 lists a number of case studies that have explored TCP performance.
本节包含几类文档，这些文档不一定定义当前的协议行为，但是TCP实现者仍然感兴趣。第6.1节描述了几个基础RFC，这些RFC使现代读者更好地理解TCP多年来行为和发展的基本原则。第6.2节中列出的文件提供了在各种网络情况下使用TCP的建议，这些网络情况比典型的有线链路更具挑战性。一些实施说明见第6.3节。第6.4节描述了TCP管理信息库。第6.5节列出了描述用于测试和调试TCP实现的工具或包含协议高级教程的RFC，第6.6节列出了一些探索TCP性能的案例研究。
The documents listed in this section contain information that is largely duplicated by the standards documents previously discussed. However, some of them contain a greater depth of problem statement explanation or other context. Particularly, RFCs 813 - 817 (known as the "Dave Clark Five") describe some early problems and solutions (RFC 815 only describes the reassembly of IP fragments and is not included in this TCP roadmap).
本节中列出的文件包含的信息与前面讨论的标准文件在很大程度上是重复的。然而，其中一些包含更深入的问题陈述解释或其他上下文。特别是，RFC813-817（被称为“DaveClarkFive”）描述了一些早期问题和解决方案（RFC815仅描述了IP片段的重新组装，不包括在TCP路线图中）。
RFC 813: "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" (July 1982)
RFC 813：“TCP中的窗口和确认策略”（1982年7月）
This document [RFC0813] contains an early discussion of Silly Window Syndrome and its avoidance and motivates and describes the use of delayed acknowledgments.
本文件[RFC0813]包含关于傻窗综合征及其避免、激励和描述延迟确认使用的早期讨论。
RFC 814: "Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes" (July 1982)
RFC 814：“名称、地址、港口和航线”（1982年7月）
Suggestions and guidance for the design of tables and algorithms to keep track of various identifiers within a TCP/IP implementation are provided by this document [RFC0814].
本文件[RFC0814]提供了关于表和算法设计的建议和指导，以跟踪TCP/IP实现中的各种标识符。
RFC 816: "Fault Isolation and Recovery" (July 1982)
RFC 816：“故障隔离和恢复”（1982年7月）
In this document [RFC0816], TCP's response to indications of network error conditions such as timeouts or received ICMP messages is discussed.
在本文件[RFC0816]中，讨论了TCP对网络错误条件指示的响应，如超时或接收到的ICMP消息。
RFC 817: "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation" (July 1982)
RFC 817：“协议实施中的模块化和效率”（1982年7月）
This document [RFC0817] contains implementation suggestions that are general and not TCP specific. However, they have been used to develop TCP implementations and to describe some performance implications of the interactions between various layers in the Internet stack.
本文件[RFC0817]包含一般性而非特定于TCP的实施建议。然而，它们已被用于开发TCP实现，并描述Internet堆栈中不同层之间交互的一些性能影响。
RFC 872: "TCP-ON-A-LAN" (September 1982)
RFC 872：“TCP-ON-A-LAN”（1982年9月）
Conclusion: "The sometimes-expressed fear that using TCP on a local net is a bad idea is unfounded." [RFC0872]
结论：“有时表示担心在本地网络上使用TCP是个坏主意是没有根据的。”[RFC0872]
RFC 896: "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" (January 1984)
RFC 896：“IP/TCP互联网中的拥塞控制”（1984年1月）
This document [RFC0896] contains some early experiences with congestion collapse and some initial thoughts on how to avoid it using congestion control in TCP.
本文档[RFC0896]包含了一些关于拥塞崩溃的早期经验，以及关于如何在TCP中使用拥塞控制避免拥塞崩溃的一些初步想法。
RFC 964: "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol" (November 1985)
RFC 964：“军用标准传输控制协议规范的一些问题”（1985年11月）
This document [RFC0964] points out several specification bugs in the US Military's MIL-STD-1778 document, which was intended as a successor to RFC 793. This serves to remind us of the difficulty in specification writing (even when we work from existing documents!).
该文件[RFC0964]指出了美军MIL-STD-1778文件中的几个规范缺陷，该文件旨在作为RFC 793的后续文件。这提醒了我们编写规范的困难（即使我们是从现有文档开始工作的！）。
RFC 1072: "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths" (October 1988)
RFC 1072：“长延迟路径的TCP扩展”（1988年10月）
This document [RFC1072] contains early explanations of the mechanisms that were later described by RFCs 1323 and 2018, which obsolete it.
本文件[RFC1072]包含RFCs 1323和2018后来描述的机制的早期解释，这些解释使其过时。
RFC 1185: "TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths" (October 1990)
RFC 1185：“高速路径的TCP扩展”（1990年10月）
This document [RFC1185] builds on RFC 1072 to describe more advanced strategies for dealing with sequence number wrapping and detecting duplicates from earlier connections. This document was obsoleted by RFC 1323.
本文档[RFC1185]以RFC1072为基础，描述了处理序列号包装和检测早期连接重复项的更高级策略。本文件已被RFC 1323作废。
RFC 2914 B: "Congestion Control Principles" (September 2000)
RFC 2914 B：“拥塞控制原则”（2000年9月）
This document [RFC2914] motivates the use of end-to-end congestion control for preventing congestion collapse and providing fairness to TCP.
本文档[RFC2914]鼓励使用端到端拥塞控制来防止拥塞崩溃并为TCP提供公平性。
As the internetworking field has explored wireless, satellite, cellular telephone, and other kinds of link-layer technologies, a large body of work has built up on enhancing TCP performance for such links. The RFCs listed in this section describe some of these more challenging network environments and how TCP interacts with them.
随着互联网领域对无线、卫星、蜂窝电话和其他类型的链路层技术的探索，大量工作都集中在提高此类链路的TCP性能上。本节中列出的RFC描述了其中一些更具挑战性的网络环境，以及TCP如何与它们交互。
RFC 2488 B: "Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms" (January 1999)
RFC 2488 B: "Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms" (January 1999)translate error, please retry
From abstract: "While TCP works over satellite channels there are several IETF standardized mechanisms that enable TCP to more effectively utilize the available capacity of the network path. This document outlines some of these TCP mitigations. At this time, all mitigations discussed in this document are IETF standards track mechanisms (or are compliant with IETF standards)." [RFC2488]
摘自摘要：“当TCP在卫星信道上工作时，有几种IETF标准化机制使TCP能够更有效地利用网络路径的可用容量。本文档概述了其中一些TCP缓解措施。目前，本文档中讨论的所有缓解措施都是IETF标准跟踪机制（或符合IETF标准）。“[RFC2488]
RFC 2757 I: "Long Thin Networks" (January 2000)
RFC 2757 I：“长瘦网络”（2000年1月）
Several methods of improving TCP performance over long thin networks, such as geosynchronous satellite links, are discussed in this document [RFC2757]. A particular set of TCP options is developed that should work well in such environments and be safe to use in the global Internet. The implications of such environments have been further discussed in RFC 3150 and RFC 3155, and these documents should be preferred where there is overlap between them and RFC 2757.
本文[RFC2757]讨论了在长瘦网络（如地球同步卫星链路）上提高TCP性能的几种方法。开发了一组特定的TCP选项，这些选项应能在此类环境中正常工作，并可在全球互联网中安全使用。RFC 3150和RFC 3155中进一步讨论了此类环境的影响，如果这些文件与RFC 2757之间存在重叠，则应首选这些文件。
RFC 2760 I: "Ongoing TCP Research Related to Satellites" (February 2000)
RFC 2760 I：“正在进行的与卫星有关的TCP研究”（2000年2月）
This document [RFC2760] discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several different experimental means of improving TCP performance over long-delay or error-prone paths. These include T/TCP, larger initial windows, byte counting, delayed acknowledgments, slow start thresholds, NewReno and SACK-based loss recovery, FACK [MM96], ECN, various corruption-detection mechanisms, congestion avoidance changes for fairness, use of multiple parallel flows, pacing, header compression, state sharing, and ACK congestion control, filtering, and reconstruction. Although RFC 2488 looks at standard extensions, this document focuses on more experimental means of performance enhancement.
本文[RFC2760]讨论了在长延迟或易出错路径上改善TCP性能的几种不同实验方法的优缺点。这些包括T/TCP、较大的初始窗口、字节计数、延迟确认、慢启动阈值、基于NewReno和SACK的丢失恢复、FACK[MM96]、ECN、各种损坏检测机制、公平性拥塞避免更改、使用多个并行流、调速、报头压缩、状态共享和ACK拥塞控制，滤波和重建。尽管RFC2488着眼于标准扩展，但本文档侧重于性能增强的更多实验手段。
RFC 3135 I: "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to Mitigate Link-Related Degradations" (June 2001)
RFC 3135 I：“旨在缓解链路相关降级的性能增强代理”（2001年6月）
From abstract: "This document is a survey of Performance Enhancing Proxies (PEPs) often employed to improve degraded TCP performance caused by characteristics of specific link environments, for example, in satellite, wireless WAN, and wireless LAN environments. Different types of Performance Enhancing Proxies are described as well as the mechanisms used to improve performance." [RFC3135]
摘自摘要：“本文件是对绩效提升代理（PEP）的调查通常用于改善因特定链路环境（例如卫星、无线WAN和无线LAN环境）的特性而导致的TCP性能降级。本文介绍了不同类型的性能增强代理以及用于提高性能的机制。“[RFC3135]
RFC 3150 B: "End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links" (July 2001)
RFC 3150 B：“慢链路的端到端性能影响”（2001年7月）
From abstract: "This document makes performance-related
recommendations for users of network paths that traverse "very low
bit-rate" links....This recommendation may be useful in any
network where hosts can saturate available bandwidth, but the
design space for this recommendation explicitly includes
connections that traverse 56 Kb/second modem links or 4.8 Kb/
second wireless access links - both of which are widely deployed."
[RFC3150]
From abstract: "This document makes performance-related
recommendations for users of network paths that traverse "very low
bit-rate" links....This recommendation may be useful in any
network where hosts can saturate available bandwidth, but the
design space for this recommendation explicitly includes
connections that traverse 56 Kb/second modem links or 4.8 Kb/
second wireless access links - both of which are widely deployed."
[RFC3150]
RFC 3155 B: "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with Errors" (August 2001)
RFC 3155 B：“有错误链接的端到端性能影响”（2001年8月）
From abstract: "This document discusses the specific TCP mechanisms that are problematic in environments with high uncorrected error rates, and discusses what can be done to mitigate the problems without introducing intermediate devices into the connection." [RFC3155]
摘自摘要：“本文档讨论了在高未纠正错误率环境中存在问题的特定TCP机制，并讨论了在不将中间设备引入连接的情况下可以采取哪些措施来缓解问题。”[RFC3155]
RFC 3366 "Advice to link designers on link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ)" (August 2002)
RFC 3366“关于链路自动重复请求（ARQ）的链路设计者建议”（2002年8月）
From abstract: "This document provides advice to the designers of digital communication equipment and link-layer protocols employing link-layer Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) techniques. This document presumes that the designers wish to support Internet protocols, but may be unfamiliar with the architecture of the Internet and with the implications of their design choices for the performance and efficiency of Internet traffic carried over their links." [RFC3366]
摘自摘要：“本文件为采用链路层自动重复请求（ARQ）的数字通信设备和链路层协议的设计者提供建议技术。本文件假定设计人员希望支持互联网协议，但可能不熟悉互联网的体系结构及其设计选择对通过其链接传输的互联网流量的性能和效率的影响。”[RFC3366]
RFC 3449 B: "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry" (December 2002)
RFC 3449 B：“网络路径不对称对TCP性能的影响”（2002年12月）
From abstract: "This document describes TCP performance problems that arise because of asymmetric effects. These problems arise in several access networks, including bandwidth-asymmetric networks and packet radio subnetworks, for different underlying reasons. However, the end result on TCP performance is the same in both cases: performance often degrades significantly because of imperfection and variability in the ACK feedback from the receiver to the sender.
摘自摘要：“本文档描述了由于不对称效应而产生的TCP性能问题。由于不同的根本原因，这些问题出现在几种接入网络中，包括带宽不对称网络和分组无线电子网。然而，在这两种情况下，TCP性能的最终结果是相同的：由于从接收方到发送方的ACK反馈的不完善性和可变性，性能通常会显著下降。
The document details several mitigations to these effects, which have either been proposed or evaluated in the literature, or are currently deployed in networks." [RFC3449]
该文件详细说明了针对这些影响的几种缓解措施，这些措施已在文献中提出或评估，或目前已部署在网络中。”[RFC3449]
RFC 3481 B: "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation Wireless Networks" (February 2003)
RFC 3481 B：“第二代（2.5G）和第三代（3G）无线网络上的TCP”（2003年2月）
From abstract: "This document describes a profile for optimizing TCP to adapt so that it handles paths including second (2.5G) and third (3G) generation wireless networks." [RFC3481]
摘自摘要：“本文档描述了一个用于优化TCP以适应的配置文件，以便它能够处理包括第二代（2.5G）和第三代（3G）无线网络在内的路径。”[RFC3481]
RFC 3819 B: "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers" (July 2004)
RFC 3819 B：“互联网子网设计者的建议”（2004年7月）
This document [RFC3819] describes how TCP performance can be negatively affected by some particular lower-layer behaviors and provides guidance in designing lower-layer networks and protocols to be amicable to TCP.
本文档[RFC3819]描述了某些特定的低层行为如何对TCP性能产生负面影响，并为设计与TCP友好的低层网络和协议提供了指导。
RFC 879: "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics" (November 1983)
RFC 879：“TCP最大段大小和相关主题”（1983年11月）
Abstract: "This memo discusses the TCP Maximum Segment Size Option and related topics. The purposes is to clarify some aspects of TCP and its interaction with IP. This memo is a clarification to the TCP specification, and contains information that may be considered as 'advice to implementers'." [RFC0879]
摘要：“本备忘录讨论TCP最大段大小选项和相关主题。目的是澄清TCP的某些方面及其与IP的交互。本备忘录是对TCP规范的澄清，并包含可能被视为“对实施者的建议”的信息。”[RFC0879]
RFC 1071: "Computing the Internet Checksum" (September 1988)
RFC 1071：“计算互联网校验和”（1988年9月）
This document [RFC1071] lists a number of implementation techniques for efficiently computing the Internet checksum (used by TCP).
本文档[RFC1071]列出了一些有效计算互联网校验和（TCP使用）的实现技术。
RFC 1624 I: "Computation of the Internet Checksum via Incremental Update" (May 1994)
RFC 1624 I：“通过增量更新计算互联网校验和”（1994年5月）
Incrementally updating the Internet checksum is useful to routers in updating IP checksums. Some middleboxes that alter TCP headers may also be able to update the TCP checksum incrementally. This document [RFC1624] expands upon the explanation of the incremental update procedure in RFC 1071.
增量更新Internet校验和对路由器更新IP校验和很有用。一些改变TCP报头的中间盒也可以增量更新TCP校验和。本文件[RFC1624]对RFC 1071中增量更新过程的解释进行了扩展。
RFC 1936 I: "Implementing the Internet Checksum in Hardware" (April 1996)
RFC 1936 I：“在硬件中实现互联网校验和”（1996年4月）
This document [RFC1936] describes the motivation for implementing the Internet checksum in hardware, rather than in software, and provides an implementation example.
本文档[RFC1936]描述了在硬件而不是软件中实现Internet校验和的动机，并提供了一个实现示例。
RFC 2525 I: "Known TCP Implementation Problems" (March 1999)
RFC 2525 I：“已知TCP实施问题”（1999年3月）
From abstract: "This memo catalogs a number of known TCP implementation problems. The goal in doing so is to improve conditions in the existing Internet by enhancing the quality of current TCP/IP implementations." [RFC2525]
摘自摘要：“本备忘录列举了许多已知的TCP实施问题。这样做的目的是通过提高当前TCP/IP实施的质量来改善现有互联网的状况。”[RFC2525]
RFC 2923 I: "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery" (September 2000)
RFC 2923 I：“路径MTU发现的TCP问题”（2000年9月）
From abstract: "This memo catalogs several known Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) implementation problems dealing with Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD), including the long-standing black hole problem, stretch acknowlegements (ACKs) due to confusion between Maximum Segment Size (MSS) and segment size, and MSS advertisement based on PMTU." [RFC2923]
摘自摘要：“本备忘录列举了几个已知的传输控制协议（TCP）实现问题，这些问题涉及路径最大传输单元发现（PMTUD），包括长期存在的黑洞问题、由于最大段大小（MSS）之间的混淆而导致的拉伸确认（ACK）和段大小，以及基于PMTU的MSS广告。”[RFC2923]
RFC 3360 B: "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful" (August 2002)
RFC 3360 B：“不适当的TCP重置被认为是有害的”（2002年8月）
This document [RFC3360] is a plea that firewall vendors not send gratuitous TCP RST (Reset) packets when unassigned TCP header bits are used. This practice prevents desirable extension and evolution of the protocol and thus is potentially harmful to the future of the Internet.
本文件[RFC3360]呼吁防火墙供应商在使用未分配的TCP头位时不要发送免费的TCP RST（重置）数据包。这种做法妨碍了协议的理想扩展和演变，因此可能对互联网的未来有害。
RFC 3493 I: "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" (February 2003)
RFC 3493 I：“IPv6的基本套接字接口扩展”（2003年2月）
This document [RFC3493] describes the de facto standard sockets API for programming with TCP. This API is implemented nearly ubiquitously in modern operating systems and programming languages.
本文档[RFC3493]描述了使用TCP编程的事实上的标准套接字API。这个API在现代操作系统和编程语言中几乎无处不在。
The first MIB module defined for use with Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) (in RFC 1066 and its update, RFC 1156) was a single monolithic MIB module, called MIB-I. This evolved over time to be MIB-II (RFC 1213). It then became apparent that having a single monolithic MIB module was not scalable, given the number and breadth of MIB data definitions that needed to be included. Thus, additional MIB modules were defined, and those parts of MIB-II that needed to evolve were split off. Eventually, the remaining parts of MIB-II were also split off, the TCP-specific part being documented in RFC 2012.
第一个定义用于简单网络管理协议（SNMP）的MIB模块（在RFC 1066及其更新版RFC 1156中）是一个单一的单片MIB模块，称为MIB-I。随着时间的推移，该模块演变为MIB-II（RFC 1213）。考虑到需要包含的MIB数据定义的数量和广度，很明显，拥有单个单片MIB模块是不可伸缩的。因此，定义了额外的MIB模块，并分离了MIB-II中需要进化的部分。最终，MIB-II的其余部分也被拆分，TCP特定部分记录在RFC 2012中。
RFC 2012 was obsoleted by RFC 4022, which is the primary TCP MIB document today. MIB-I, defined in RFC 1156, has been obsoleted by the MIB-II specification in RFC 1213. For current TCP implementers, RFC 4022 should be supported.
RFC 2012被RFC 4022淘汰，RFC 4022是当今主要的TCP MIB文档。RFC 1156中定义的MIB-I已被RFC 1213中的MIB-II规范淘汰。对于当前的TCP实现者，应该支持RFC4022。
RFC 1066: "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based Internets" (August 1988)
RFC 1066：“基于TCP/IP的互联网网络管理的管理信息库”（1988年8月）
This document [RFC1066] was the description of the TCP MIB. It was obsoleted by RFC 1156.
本文档[RFC1066]是对TCP MIB的描述。它被RFC 1156淘汰。
RFC 1156 S: "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based Internets" (May 1990)
RFC 1156 S：“基于TCP/IP的互联网网络管理的管理信息库”（1990年5月）
This document [RFC1156] describes the required MIB fields for TCP implementations, with minor corrections and no technical changes from RFC 1066, which it obsoletes. This is the standards track document for MIB-I.
本文档[RFC1156]描述了TCP实现所需的MIB字段，并对RFC1066进行了微小的修改，且未对其进行任何技术更改，该文档已经废弃。这是MIB-I的标准跟踪文档。
RFC 1213 S: "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based Internets: MIB-II" (March 1991)
RFC 1213 S：“基于TCP/IP的互联网网络管理的管理信息库：MIB-II”（1991年3月）
This document [RFC1213] describes the second version of the MIB in a monolithic form. RFC 2012 updates this document by splitting out the TCP-specific portions.
本文档[RFC1213]以单片形式描述了MIB的第二个版本。RFC 2012通过拆分TCP特定部分来更新此文档。
RFC 2012 S: "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2" (November 1996)
RFC 2012 S：“使用SMIv2的传输控制协议的SNMPv2管理信息库”（1996年11月）
This document [RFC2012] defined the TCP MIB, in an update to RFC 1213. It is now obsoleted by RFC 4022.
本文档[RFC2012]在对RFC 1213的更新中定义了TCP MIB。它现在已被RFC4022淘汰。
RFC 2452 S: "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol" (December 1998)
RFC 2452 S：“传输控制协议的IP版本6管理信息库”（1998年12月）
This document [RFC2452] augments RFC 2012 by adding an IPv6- specific connection table. The rest of 2012 holds for any IP version. RFC 2012 is now obsoleted by RFC 4022.
本文档[RFC2452]通过添加特定于IPv6的连接表来扩充RFC 2012。2012年剩余时间适用于任何IP版本。RFC 2012现已被RFC 4022淘汰。
Although it is a standards track document, RFC 2452 is considered a historic mistake by the MIB community, as it is based on the idea of parallel IPv4 and IPv6 structures. Although IPv6 requires new structures, the community has decided to define a single generic structure for both IPv4 and IPv6. This will aid in definition, implementation, and transition between IPv4 and IPv6.
尽管RFC 2452是一份标准跟踪文档，但MIB社区认为它是一个历史性错误，因为它基于并行IPv4和IPv6结构的思想。尽管IPv6需要新的结构，但社区已决定为IPv4和IPv6定义一个通用结构。这将有助于IPv4和IPv6之间的定义、实现和转换。
RFC 4022 S: "Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)" (March 2005)
RFC 4022 S：“传输控制协议（TCP）的管理信息库”（2005年3月）
This document [RFC4022] obsoletes RFC 2012 and RFC 2452 and specifies the current standard for the TCP MIB that should be deployed.
本文档[RFC4022]废除了RFC 2012和RFC 2452，并指定了应部署的TCP MIB的当前标准。
RFC 1180 I: "TCP/IP Tutorial" (January 1991)
RFC1180I：“TCP/IP教程”（1991年1月）
This document [RFC1180] is an extremely brief overview of the TCP/IP protocol suite as a whole. It gives some explanation as to how and where TCP fits in.
本文档[RFC1180]对TCP/IP协议套件作为一个整体进行了极其简要的概述。它给出了一些关于TCP如何以及在何处适合的解释。
RFC 1470 I: "FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected Devices" (June 1993)
RFC 1470 I：“网络管理工具目录上的FYI：监控和调试TCP/IP互联网和互连设备的工具”（1993年6月）
A few of the tools that this document [RFC1470] describes are still maintained and in use today; for example, ttcp and tcpdump. However, many of the tools described do not relate specifically to TCP and are no longer used or easily available.
本文件[RFC1470]描述的一些工具至今仍在维护和使用中；例如，ttcp和tcpdump。然而，所描述的许多工具并不专门与TCP相关，并且不再使用或容易获得。
RFC 2398 I: "Some Testing Tools for TCP Implementors" (August 1998)
RFC 2398 I：“TCP实现者的一些测试工具”（1998年8月）
This document [RFC2398] describes a number of TCP packet generation and analysis tools. Although some of these tools are no longer readily available or widely used, for the most part they are still relevant and usable.
本文档[RFC2398]描述了许多TCP数据包生成和分析工具。尽管其中一些工具不再容易获得或广泛使用，但在大多数情况下，它们仍然是相关的和可用的。
RFC 1337 I: "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP" (May 1992)
RFC 1337 I：“TCP中的等待时间暗杀危险”（1992年5月）
This document [RFC1337] points out a problem with acting on received reset segments while one is in the TIME-WAIT state. The main recommendation is that hosts in TIME-WAIT ignore resets. This recommendation might not currently be widely implemented.
本文件[RFC1337]指出了在接收的重置段处于等待时间状态时对其进行操作的问题。主要建议是等待时间的主机忽略重置。这项建议目前可能没有得到广泛执行。
RFC 2415 I: "Simulation Studies of Increased Initial TCP Window Size" (September 1998)
RFC 2415 I：“增加初始TCP窗口大小的模拟研究”（1998年9月）
This document [RFC2415] presents results of some simulations using TCP initial windows greater than 1 segment. The analysis indicates that user-perceived performance can be improved by increasing the initial window to 3 segments.
本文件[RFC2415]介绍了使用TCP初始窗口大于1段的一些模拟结果。分析表明，通过将初始窗口增加到3个分段，可以提高用户感知性能。
RFC 2416 I: "When TCP Starts Up With Four Packets Into Only Three Buffers" (September 1998)
RFC 2416 I：“当TCP启动时，只有四个数据包进入三个缓冲区”（1998年9月）
This document [RFC2416] uses simulation results to clear up some concerns about using an initial window of 4 segments when the network path has less provisioning.
本文档[RFC2416]使用模拟结果来解决当网络路径的供应较少时使用4段初始窗口的一些问题。
RFC 2884 I: "Performance Evaluation of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks" (July 2000)
RFC 2884 I：“IP网络中显式拥塞通知（ECN）的性能评估”（2000年7月）
This document [RFC2884] describes experimental results that show some improvements to the performance of both short- and long-lived connections due to ECN.
本文档[RFC2884]描述了一些实验结果，这些结果表明，由于ECN，短寿命连接和长寿命连接的性能都有一些改善。
There are a few important implementation tactics for the TCP that have not yet been described in any RFC. Although this roadmap is primarily concerned with mapping the TCP RFCs, this section is included because an implementer needs to be aware of these important issues.
有一些重要的TCP实现策略尚未在任何RFC中描述。尽管本路线图主要关注TCP RFC的映射，但之所以包含本节，是因为实施者需要了解这些重要问题。
SYN Cookies
同步饼干
A mechanism known as "SYN cookies" is widely used to thwart TCP SYN flooding attacks, in which an attacker sends a flood of SYNs to a victim but fails to complete the 3-way handshake. The result is exhaustion of resources at the server. The SYN cookie mechanism allows the server to return a cleverly chosen initial sequence number that has all the required state for the secure completion of the handshake. Then the server can avoid saving connection state during the 3-way handshake and thus survive a SYN flooding attack.
一种称为“SYN Cookie”的机制被广泛用于阻止TCP SYN洪泛攻击，在这种攻击中，攻击者向受害者发送大量SYN，但无法完成三方握手。结果是服务器上的资源耗尽。syncookie机制允许服务器返回一个精心选择的初始序列号，该序列号具有安全完成握手所需的所有状态。这样，服务器就可以避免在三方握手期间保存连接状态，从而在SYN洪泛攻击中幸存下来。
A web search for "SYN cookies" will reveal a number of useful descriptions of this mechanism, although there is currently no RFC on the matter.
对“SYN cookies”的网络搜索将揭示许多关于这种机制的有用描述，尽管目前还没有关于这个问题的RFC。
Header Prediction
报头预测
Header prediction is a trick to speed up the processing of segments. Van Jacobson and Mike Karels developed the technique in the late 1980s. The basic idea is that some processing time can be saved when most of a segment's fields can be predicted from previous segments. A good description of this was sent to the TCP-IP mailing list by Van Jacobson on March 9, 1988:
报头预测是一种加快段处理速度的技巧。Van Jacobson和Mike Karels在20世纪80年代末开发了这项技术。其基本思想是，当可以从以前的段预测段的大部分字段时，可以节省一些处理时间。1988年3月9日，Van Jacobson向TCP-IP邮件列表发送了关于这一点的详细说明：
Quite a bit of the speedup comes from an algorithm that we ('we' refers to collaborator Mike Karels and myself) are calling "header prediction". The idea is that if you're in the middle of a bulk data transfer and have just seen a packet, you know what the next packet is going to look like: It will look just like the current packet with either the sequence number or ack number updated (depending on whether you're the sender or receiver). Combining this with the "Use hints" epigram from Butler Lampson's classic "Epigrams for System Designers", you start to think of the tcp state (rcv.nxt, snd.una, etc.) as "hints" about what the next packet should look like.
相当多的加速来自一种我们称之为“头预测”的算法（“我们”指的是合作者迈克·卡勒斯和我自己）。这个想法是，如果你正处于批量数据传输的中间，并且刚刚看到一个数据包，你就知道下一个数据包会是什么样子：它看起来就像当前的数据包，它有序列号或ACK号的更新（取决于你是发送者还是接收者）。结合巴特勒·兰普森（Butler Lampson）的经典“系统设计师的警句”中的“使用提示”警句，您开始将tcp状态（rcv.nxt、snd.una等）视为下一个数据包应该是什么样子的“提示”。
If you arrange those "hints" so they match the layout of a tcp packet header, it takes a single 14-byte compare to see if your prediction is correct (3 longword compares to pick up the send & ack sequence numbers, header length, flags and window, plus a short compare on the length). If the prediction is correct, there's a single test on the length to see if you're the sender or receiver followed by the appropriate processing. E.g., if the length is non-zero (you're the receiver), checksum and append the data to the socket buffer then wake any process that's sleeping on the buffer. Update rcv.nxt by the length of this packet (this updates your "prediction" of the next packet). Check if you can handle another packet the same size as the current one. If not, set one of the unused flag bits in your header prediction to guarantee that the prediction will fail on the next packet and force you to go through full protocol processing. Otherwise, you're done with this packet. So, the *total* tcp protocol processing, exclusive of checksumming, is on the order of 6 compares and an add.
如果您排列这些“提示”，使其与tcp数据包头的布局相匹配，则需要进行一次14字节的比较，以查看您的预测是否正确（3次长字比较，以获取发送和确认序列号、头长度、标志和窗口，加上对长度的简短比较）。如果预测是正确的，则只需对长度进行一次测试，以确定您是发送者还是接收者，然后进行适当的处理。例如，如果长度不为零（您是接收器），则校验和并将数据附加到套接字缓冲区，然后唤醒缓冲区上休眠的任何进程。按此数据包的长度更新rcv.nxt（这将更新您对下一个数据包的“预测”）。检查是否可以处理与当前数据包大小相同的另一个数据包。如果没有，则在报头预测中设置一个未使用的标志位，以确保预测在下一个数据包上失败，并强制您进行完整的协议处理。否则，你就不需要这个包了。因此，不包括校验和的*total*tcp协议处理大约是6个比较和一个加法。
This document introduces no new security considerations. Each RFC listed in this document attempts to address the security considerations of the specification it contains.
本文档没有引入新的安全注意事项。本文档中列出的每个RFC都试图解决它所包含的规范的安全注意事项。
This document grew out of a discussion on the end2end-interest mailing list, the public list of the End-to-End Research Group of the IRTF, and continued development under the IETF's TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) working group. We thank Joe Touch, Reiner Ludwig, Pekka Savola, Gorry Fairhurst, and Sally Floyd for their contributions, in particular. The chairs of the TCPM working group, Mark Allman and Ted Faber, have been instrumental in the development of this document. Keith McCloghrie provided some useful notes and clarification on the various MIB-related RFCs.
本文件源于对End2 End interest邮件列表、IRTF端到端研究组的公开列表以及IETF的TCP维护和小型扩展（TCPM）工作组下的持续开发的讨论。我们特别感谢乔·图奇、雷纳·路德维希、佩卡·萨沃拉、戈里·费尔赫斯特和萨利·弗洛伊德的贡献。TCPM工作组主席Mark Allman和Ted Faber在本文件的编写过程中发挥了重要作用。Keith McCloghrie就各种MIB相关RFC提供了一些有用的注释和说明。
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC0793]Postel，J.，“传输控制协议”，标准7，RFC 793，1981年9月。
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1122]Braden，R.，“互联网主机的要求-通信层”，标准3，RFC 1122，1989年10月。
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2460]Deering，S.和R.Hinden，“互联网协议，第6版（IPv6）规范”，RFC 2460，1998年12月。
[RFC2474] 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.
[RFC2474]Nichols，K.，Blake，S.，Baker，F.，和D.Black，“IPv4和IPv6头中区分服务字段（DS字段）的定义”，RFC 2474，1998年12月。
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[RFC2581]Allman，M.，Paxson，V.和W.Stevens，“TCP拥塞控制”，RFC 25811999年4月。
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC2675]Borman，D.，Deering，S.，和R.Hinden，“IPv6巨型程序”，RFC 26751999年8月。
[RFC2873] Xiao, X., Hannan, A., Paxson, V., and E. Crabbe, "TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field", RFC 2873, June 2000.
[RFC2873]Xiao，X.，Hannan，A.，Paxson，V.，和E.Crabbe，“IPv4优先字段的TCP处理”，RFC 28732000年6月。
[RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.
[RFC2988]Paxson，V.和M.Allman，“计算TCP的重传计时器”，RFC 2988，2000年11月。
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, R., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC1323]Jacobson，V.，Braden，R.，和D.Borman，“高性能TCP扩展”，RFC 1323，1992年5月。
[RFC1948] Bellovin, S., "Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks", RFC 1948, May 1996.
[RFC1948]Bellovin，S.，“防御序列号攻击”，RFC 1948，1996年5月。
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[RFC2018]Mathis，M.，Mahdavi，J.，Floyd，S.，和A.Romanow，“TCP选择性确认选项”，RFC 2018，1996年10月。
[RFC2385] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.
[RFC2385]Heffernan，A.，“通过TCP MD5签名选项保护BGP会话”，RFC 2385，1998年8月。
[RFC2883] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M., and M. Podolsky, "An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000.
[RFC2883]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。
[RFC3042] Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H., and S. Floyd, "Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit", RFC 3042, January 2001.
[RFC3042]Allman，M.，Balakrishnan，H.，和S.Floyd，“使用有限传输增强TCP的丢失恢复”，RFC 3042，2001年1月。
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3168]Ramakrishnan，K.，Floyd，S.，和D.Black，“向IP添加显式拥塞通知（ECN）”，RFC 3168，2001年9月。
[RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002.
[RFC3390]奥尔曼，M.，弗洛伊德，S.，和C.帕特里奇，“增加TCP的初始窗口”，RFC3390，2002年10月。
[RFC3517] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Fall, K., and L. Wang, "A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP", RFC 3517, April 2003.
[RFC3517]Blanton，E.，Allman，M.，Fall，K.，和L.Wang，“基于保守选择确认（SACK）的TCP丢失恢复算法”，RFC 3517，2003年4月。
[RFC3562] Leech, M., "Key Management Considerations for the TCP MD5 Signature Option", RFC 3562, July 2003.
[RFC3562]Leech，M.，“TCP MD5签名选项的密钥管理注意事项”，RFC 3562，2003年7月。
[RFC3782] Floyd, S., Henderson, T., and A. Gurtov, "The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 3782, April 2004.
[RFC3782]Floyd，S.，Henderson，T.，和A.Gurtov，“TCP快速恢复算法的NewReno修改”，RFC 3782，2004年4月。
[RFC4015] Ludwig, R. and A. Gurtov, "The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP", RFC 4015, February 2005.
[RFC4015]Ludwig，R.和A.Gurtov，“TCP的Eifel响应算法”，RFC 4015，2005年2月。
[RFC4278] Bellovin, S. and A. Zinin, "Standards Maturity Variance Regarding the TCP MD5 Signature Option (RFC 2385) and the BGP-4 Specification", RFC 4278, January 2006.
[RFC4278]Bellovin，S.和A.Zinin，“关于TCP MD5签名选项（RFC 2385）和BGP-4规范的标准成熟度差异”，RFC 4278，2006年1月。
[RFC2140] Touch, J., "TCP Control Block Interdependence", RFC 2140, April 1997.
[RFC2140]Touch，J.，“TCP控制块相互依赖”，RFC 2140，1997年4月。
[RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J., and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion Window Validation", RFC 2861, June 2000.
[RFC2861]Handley，M.，Padhye，J.，和S.Floyd，“TCP拥塞窗口验证”，RFC 28612000年6月。
[RFC3124] Balakrishnan, H. and S. Seshan, "The Congestion Manager", RFC 3124, June 2001.
[RFC3124]Balakrishnan，H.和S.Seshan，“拥堵管理者”，RFC31242001年6月。
[RFC3465] Allman, M., "TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte Counting (ABC)", RFC 3465, February 2003.
[RFC3465]Allman，M.，“具有适当字节计数的TCP拥塞控制（ABC）”，RFC 3465，2003年2月。
[RFC3522] Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, "The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCP", RFC 3522, April 2003.
[RFC3522]Ludwig，R.和M.Meyer，“TCP的Eifel检测算法”，RFC 3522，2003年4月。
[RFC3540] Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces", RFC 3540, June 2003.
[RFC3540]Spring，N.，Weterral，D.，和D.Ely，“带有nonce的鲁棒显式拥塞通知（ECN）信令”，RFC 35402003年6月。
[RFC3649] Floyd, S., "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows", RFC 3649, December 2003.
[RFC3649]Floyd，S.，“用于大拥塞窗口的高速TCP”，RFC 3649，2003年12月。
[RFC3708] Blanton, E. and M. Allman, "Using TCP Duplicate Selective Acknowledgement (DSACKs) and Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Duplicate Transmission Sequence Numbers (TSNs) to Detect Spurious Retransmissions", RFC 3708, February 2004.
[RFC3708]Blanton，E.和M.Allman，“使用TCP重复选择确认（DSACKs）和流控制传输协议（SCTP）重复传输序列号（TSN）来检测虚假重传”，RFC 3708，2004年2月。
[RFC3742] Floyd, S., "Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion Windows", RFC 3742, March 2004.
[RFC3742]Floyd，S.，“具有大拥塞窗口的TCP有限慢启动”，RFC 3742，2004年3月。
[RFC4138] Sarolahti, P. and M. Kojo, "Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4138, August 2005.
[RFC4138]Sarolahti，P.和M.Kojo，“前向RTO恢复（F-RTO）：使用TCP和流控制传输协议（SCTP）检测虚假重传超时的算法”，RFC 4138，2005年8月。
[RFC1106] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106, June 1989.
[RFC1106]Fox，R.，“TCP大窗口和NAK选项”，RFC1106，1989年6月。
[RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option", RFC 1110, August 1989.
[RFC1110]McKenzie，A.，“TCP大窗口选项的问题”，RFC11101989年8月。
[RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum options", RFC 1146, March 1990.
[RFC1146]Zweig，J.和C.Partridge，“TCP备用校验和选项”，RFC 11461990年3月。
[RFC1263] O'Malley, S. and L. Peterson, "TCP Extensions Considered Harmful", RFC 1263, October 1991.
[RFC1263]O'Malley，S.和L.Peterson，“被认为有害的TCP扩展”，RFC1263，1991年10月。
[RFC1379] Braden, R., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts", RFC 1379, November 1992.
[RFC1379]Braden，R.，“为事务扩展TCP——概念”，RFC 1379，1992年11月。
[RFC1644] Braden, R., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.
[RFC1644]Braden，R.，“T/TCP——事务功能规范的TCP扩展”，RFC16441994年7月。
[RFC1693] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994.
[RFC1693]Connolly，T.，Amer，P.，和P.Conrad，“TCP的扩展：部分订单服务”，RFC 1693，1994年11月。
[RFC0813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP", RFC 813, July 1982.
[RFC0813]Clark，D.，“TCP中的窗口和确认策略”，RFC 813，1982年7月。
[RFC0814] Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes", RFC 814, July 1982.
[RFC0814]Clark，D.，“名称、地址、港口和路线”，RFC 814，1982年7月。
[RFC0816] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816, July 1982.
[RFC0816]Clark，D.，“故障隔离和恢复”，RFC 816，1982年7月。
[RFC0817] Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol implementation", RFC 817, July 1982.
[RFC0817]Clark，D.，“协议实现中的模块化和效率”，RFC 817，1982年7月。
[RFC0872] Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN", RFC 872, September 1982.
[RFC0872]Padlipsky，M.，“局域网上的TCP”，RFC 872，1982年9月。
[RFC0879] Postel, J., "TCP maximum segment size and related topics", RFC 879, November 1983.
[RFC0879]Postel，J.，“TCP最大段大小和相关主题”，RFC 879，1983年11月。
[RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks", RFC 896, January 1984.
[RFC0896]Nagle，J.，“IP/TCP网络中的拥塞控制”，RFC 896，1984年1月。
[RFC0964] Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 964, November 1985.
[RFC0964]Sidhu，D.和T.Blumer，“军用标准传输控制协议规范的一些问题”，RFC 964，1985年11月。
[RFC1066] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1066, August 1988.
[RFC1066]McCloghrie，K.和M.Rose，“基于TCP/IP的互联网网络管理的管理信息库”，RFC 1066，1988年8月。
[RFC1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the Internet checksum", RFC 1071, September 1988.
[RFC1071]Braden，R.，Borman，D.，和C.Partridge，“计算互联网校验和”，RFC 10711988年9月。
[RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.
[RFC1072]Jacobson，V.和R.Braden，“长延迟路径的TCP扩展”，RFC 1072，1988年10月。
[RFC1156] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for network management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1156, May 1990.
[RFC1156]McCloghrie，K.和M.Rose，“基于TCP/IP的互联网网络管理的管理信息库”，RFC 1156，1990年5月。
[RFC1180] Socolofsky, T. and C. Kale, "TCP/IP tutorial", RFC 1180, January 1991.
[RFC1180]Socolofsky，T.和C.Kale，“TCP/IP教程”，RFC11801991年1月。
[RFC1185] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and L. Zhang, "TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths", RFC 1185, October 1990.
[RFC1185]Jacobson，V.，Braden，B.，和L.Zhang，“高速路径的TCP扩展”，RFC 11851990年10月。
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.
[RFC1213]McCloghrie，K.和M.Rose，“基于TCP/IP的互联网网络管理的管理信息库：MIB-II”，STD 17，RFC 1213，1991年3月。
[RFC1337] Braden, R., "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP", RFC 1337, May 1992.
[RFC1337]Braden，R.，“TCP中的等待时间暗杀危险”，RFC 1337，1992年5月。
[RFC1470] Enger, R. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected Devices", FYI 2, RFC 1470, June 1993.
[RFC1470]Enger，R.和J.Reynolds，“网络管理工具目录的FYI：监控和调试TCP/IP互联网和互连设备的工具”，FYI 2，RFC 1470，1993年6月。
[RFC1624] Rijsinghani, A., "Computation of the Internet Checksum via Incremental Update", RFC 1624, May 1994.
[RFC1624]Rijsinghani，A.，“通过增量更新计算互联网校验和”，RFC1624，1994年5月。
[RFC1936] Touch, J. and B. Parham, "Implementing the Internet Checksum in Hardware", RFC 1936, April 1996.
[RFC1936]Touch，J.和B.Parham，“在硬件中实现互联网校验和”，RFC 1936，1996年4月。
[RFC2012] McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2", RFC 2012, November 1996.
[RFC2012]McCloghrie，K.，“使用SMIv2的传输控制协议的SNMPv2管理信息库”，RFC 2012，1996年11月。
[RFC2398] Parker, S. and C. Schmechel, "Some Testing Tools for TCP Implementors", RFC 2398, August 1998.
[RFC2398]Parker，S.和C.Schmechel，“TCP实现者的一些测试工具”，RFC2398，1998年8月。
[RFC2415] Poduri, K. and K. Nichols, "Simulation Studies of Increased Initial TCP Window Size", RFC 2415, September 1998.
[RFC2415]Poduri，K.和K.Nichols，“增加初始TCP窗口大小的模拟研究”，RFC 2415，1998年9月。
[RFC2416] Shepard, T. and C. Partridge, "When TCP Starts Up With Four Packets Into Only Three Buffers", RFC 2416, September 1998.
[RFC2416]Shepard，T.和C.Partridge，“当TCP启动时，只有四个数据包进入三个缓冲区”，RFC 2416，1998年9月。
[RFC2452] Daniele, M., "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 2452, December 1998.
[RFC2452]Daniele，M.，“传输控制协议的IP版本6管理信息库”，RFC 2452，1998年12月。
[RFC2488] Allman, M., Glover, D., and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms", BCP 28, RFC 2488, January 1999.
[RFC2488]Allman，M.，Glover，D.，和L.Sanchez，“使用标准机制增强卫星信道上的TCP”，BCP 28，RFC 2488，1999年1月。
[RFC2525] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Dawson, S., Fenner, W., Griner, J., Heavens, I., Lahey, K., Semke, J., and B. Volz, "Known TCP Implementation Problems", RFC 2525, March 1999.
[RFC2525]Paxson，V.，Allman，M.，Dawson，S.，Fenner，W.，Griner，J.，Skys，I.，Lahey，K.，Semke，J.，和B.Volz，“已知的TCP实施问题”，RFC 25251999年3月。
[RFC2757] Montenegro, G., Dawkins, S., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N. Vaidya, "Long Thin Networks", RFC 2757, January 2000.
[RFC2757]黑山，G.，道金斯，S.，科乔，M.，马格里特，V.，和N.瓦迪亚，“长瘦网络”，RFC 2757，2000年1月。
[RFC2760] 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.
[RFC2760]Allman，M.，Dawkins，S.，Glover，D.，Griner，J.，Tran，D.，Henderson，T.，Heidemann，J.，Touch，J.，Kruse，H.，Ostermann，S.，Scott，K.，和J.Semke，“正在进行的与卫星相关的TCP研究”，RFC 27602000年2月。
[RFC2884] Hadi Salim, J. and U. Ahmed, "Performance Evaluation of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks", RFC 2884, July 2000.
[RFC2884]Hadi Salim，J.和U.Ahmed，“IP网络中显式拥塞通知（ECN）的性能评估”，RFC 2884，2000年7月。
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC 2914, September 2000.
[RFC2914]Floyd，S.，“拥塞控制原则”，BCP 41，RFC 2914，2000年9月。
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery", RFC 2923, September 2000.
[RFC2923]Lahey，K.，“路径MTU发现的TCP问题”，RFC 29232000年9月。
[RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z. Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135, June 2001.
[RFC3135]Border，J.，Kojo，M.，Griner，J.，黑山，G.，和Z.Shelby，“旨在缓解链路相关降级的性能增强代理”，RFC 31352001年6月。
[RFC3150] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., and V. Magret, "End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links", BCP 48, RFC 3150, July 2001.
[RFC3150]Dawkins，S.，黑山，G.，Kojo，M.，和V.Magret，“慢链路的端到端性能影响”，BCP 48，RFC 3150，2001年7月。
[RFC3155] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N. Vaidya, "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with Errors", BCP 50, RFC 3155, August 2001.
[RFC3155]Dawkins，S.，黑山，G.，Kojo，M.，Magret，V.，和N.Vaidya，“带错误链接的端到端性能影响”，BCP 50，RFC 3155，2001年8月。
[RFC3360] Floyd, S., "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful", BCP 60, RFC 3360, August 2002.
[RFC3360]Floyd，S.，“不适当的TCP重置被认为是有害的”，BCP 60，RFC 3360，2002年8月。
[RFC3366] Fairhurst, G. and L. Wood, "Advice to link designers on link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ)", BCP 62, RFC 3366, August 2002.
[RFC3366]Fairhurst，G.和L.Wood，“链接自动重复请求（ARQ）对链接设计者的建议”，BCP 62，RFC 3366，2002年8月。
[RFC3449] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G., and M. Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry", BCP 69, RFC 3449, December 2002.
[RFC3449]Balakrishnan，H.，Padmanabhan，V.，Fairhurst，G.，和M.Sooriyabandara，“网络路径不对称的TCP性能影响”，BCP 69，RFC 3449，2002年12月。
[RFC3481] Inamura, H., Montenegro, G., Ludwig, R., Gurtov, A., and F. Khafizov, "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation Wireless Networks", BCP 71, RFC 3481, February 2003.
[RFC3481]Inamura，H.，黑山，G.，路德维希，R.，Gurtov，A.，和F.Khafizov，“第二代（2.5G）和第三代（3G）无线网络上的TCP”，BCP 71，RFC 3481，2003年2月。
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3493]Gilligan，R.，Thomson，S.，Bound，J.，McCann，J.，和W.Stevens，“IPv6的基本套接字接口扩展”，RFC 3493，2003年2月。
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D., Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L. Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89, RFC 3819, July 2004.
[RFC3819]Karn，P.，Bormann，C.，Fairhurst，G.，Grossman，D.，路德维希，R.，Mahdavi，J.，黑山，G.，Touch，J.，和L.Wood，“互联网子网络设计师的建议”，BCP 89，RFC 3819，2004年7月。
[RFC4022] Raghunarayan, R., "Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", RFC 4022, March 2005.
[RFC4022]Raghunarayan，R.，“传输控制协议（TCP）的管理信息库”，RFC 40222，2005年3月。
[JK92] Jacobson, V. and M. Karels, "Congestion Avoidance and Control", This paper is a revised version of [Jac88], that includes an additional appendix. This paper has not been traditionally published, but is currently available at ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.ps.Z. 1992.
[JK92]Jacobson，V.和M.Karels，“拥塞避免和控制”，本文是[Jac88]的修订版，包括附加附录。本论文传统上未发表，但目前可在ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.ps.Z. 1992
[Jac88] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", ACM SIGCOMM 1988 Proceedings, in ACM Computer Communication Review, 18 (4), pp. 314-329, August 1988.
[Jac88]Jacobson，V.，“拥塞避免和控制”，ACM SIGCOMM 1988年会议记录，载于《ACM计算机通信评论》，第18（4）页，第314-329页，1988年8月。
[KP87] Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Round Trip Time Estimation", ACM SIGCOMM 1987 Proceedings, in ACM Computer Communication Review, 17 (5), pp. 2-7, August 1987
[KP87]Karn，P.和C.Partridge，“往返时间估算”，ACM SIGCOMM 1987年会议记录，载于《ACM计算机通信评论》，第17（5）页，第2-7页，1987年8月
[MAF04] Medina, A., Allman, M., and S. Floyd, "Measuring the Evolution of Transport Protocols in the Internet", ACM Computer Communication Review, 35 (2), April 2005.
[MAF04]Medina，A.，Allman，M.，和S.Floyd，“测量互联网传输协议的演变”，ACM计算机通信评论，35（2），2005年4月。
[MM96] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "Forward Acknowledgement: Refining TCP Congestion Control", ACM SIGCOMM 1996 Proceedings, in ACM Computer Communication Review 26 (4), pp. 281-292, October 1996.
[MM96]Mathis，M.和J.Mahdavi，“转发确认：改进TCP拥塞控制”，ACM SIGCOMM 1996年会议记录，载于《ACM计算机通信评论》26（4），第281-292页，1996年10月。
[SCWA99] Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson, "TCP Congestion Control with a Misbehaving Receiver", ACM Computer Communication Review, 29 (5), pp. 71-78, October 1999.
[SCWA99]Savage，S.，Cardwell，N.，Wetheral，D.，和T.Anderson，“使用行为不当接收器的TCP拥塞控制”，ACM计算机通信评论，29（5），第71-78页，1999年10月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Martin H. Duke The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, MC 7L-49 Seattle, WA 98124-2207
马丁·H·杜克波音公司华盛顿州西雅图市MC 7L-49 3707号邮政信箱98124-2207
Phone: 425-373-2852 EMail: martin.duke@boeing.com
电话：425-373-2852电子邮件：马丁。duke@boeing.com
Robert Braden USC Information Sciences Institute Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
罗伯特·布拉登南加州信息科学研究所马里纳·德雷，加利福尼亚州90292-6695
Phone: 310-448-9173 EMail: braden@isi.edu
电话：310-448-9173电子邮件：braden@isi.edu
Wesley M. Eddy Verizon Federal Network Systems 21000 Brookpark Rd, MS 54-5 Cleveland, OH 44135
威斯利M.埃迪威瑞森联邦网络系统公司，地址：俄亥俄州克利夫兰市布鲁克帕克路21000号，邮编：44135
Phone: 216-433-6682 EMail: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
电话：216-433-6682电子邮件：weddy@grc.nasa.gov
Ethan Blanton Purdue University Computer Science 250 N. University St. West Lafayette, IN 47907
伊桑·布兰顿·普渡大学计算机科学250 N.大学圣西拉斐特分校，47907年
EMail: eblanton@cs.purdue.edu
EMail: eblanton@cs.purdue.edu
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
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 provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
RFC编辑器功能的资金由IETF行政支持活动（IASA）提供。