Network Working Group J. Arkko
Request for Comments: 5494 Ericsson
Updates: 826, 951, 1044, 1329, 2131, C. Pignataro
2132, 2176, 2225, 2834, 2835, Cisco Systems
3315, 4338, 4361, 4701 April 2009
Category: Standards Track
Network Working Group J. Arkko
Request for Comments: 5494 Ericsson
Updates: 826, 951, 1044, 1329, 2131, C. Pignataro
2132, 2176, 2225, 2834, 2835, Cisco Systems
3315, 4338, 4361, 4701 April 2009
Category: Standards Track
IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
地址解析协议（ARP）的IANA分配指南
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2009 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托在本文件出版之日生效的与IETF文件有关的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Abstract
摘要
This document specifies the IANA guidelines for allocating new values in the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP). This document also reserves some numbers for experimentation purposes. The changes also affect other protocols that employ values from the ARP name spaces.
本文件规定了IANA在地址解析协议（ARP）中分配新值的指南。本文件还保留了一些用于实验目的的数字。这些更改也会影响使用ARP名称空间中的值的其他协议。
This document specifies the IANA guidelines [RFC5226] for allocating new values for various fields in the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [RFC0826]. The change is also applicable to extensions of ARP that use the same message format, such as [RFC0903], [RFC1931], and [RFC2390].
本文件规定了IANA指南[RFC5226]，用于为地址解析协议（ARP）[RFC0826]中的各个字段分配新值。此更改也适用于使用相同消息格式的ARP扩展，如[RFC0903]、[RFC1931]和[RFC2390]。
The change also affects other protocols that employ values from the ARP name spaces. For instance, the ARP hardware address type (ar$hrd) number space is also used in the "htype" (hardware address type) fields in the Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) [RFC0951] and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131], as well as in the "hardware type" field in the DHCP Unique Identifiers in DHCPv6 [RFC3315]. These protocols are therefore affected by the update in the IANA rules. Other affected specifications include the specialized address resolution mechanisms in:
这一变化也会影响使用ARP名称空间值的其他协议。例如，ARP硬件地址类型（ar$hrd）编号空间也用于引导协议（BOOTP）[RFC0951]和动态主机配置协议（DHCP）[RFC2131]中的“htype”（硬件地址类型）字段，以及DHCPv6[RFC3315]中DHCP唯一标识符中的“硬件类型”字段。因此，这些协议受IANA规则更新的影响。其他受影响的规范包括以下方面的专用地址解析机制：
o HYPERchannel [RFC1044]
o 超通道[RFC1044]
o DHCP options [RFC2132] [RFC4361]
o DHCP选项[RFC2132][RFC4361]
o ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) ARP [RFC2225]
o ATM（异步传输模式）ARP[RFC2225]
o HARP (High-Performance Parallel Interface ARP) [RFC2834] [RFC2835]
o HARP（高性能并行接口ARP）[RFC2834][RFC2835]
o Dual MAC (Media Access Control) FDDI (Fiber Distributed Data Interface) ARP [RFC1329]
o 双MAC（媒体访问控制）FDDI（光纤分布式数据接口）ARP[RFC1329]
o MAPOS (Multiple Access Protocol over Synchronous Optical Network/ Synchronous Digital Hierarchy) ARP [RFC2176]
o MAPOS（同步光网络/同步数字体系上的多址协议）ARP[RFC2176]
o FC (Fibre Channel) ARP [RFC4338]
o FC（光纤通道）ARP[RFC4338]
o DNS DHCID Resource Record [RFC4701]
o DNS DHCID资源记录[RFC4701]
The IANA guidelines are given in Section 2. Previously, no IANA guidance existed for such allocations. The purpose of this document is to allow IANA to manage number assignments based on these guidelines in a consistent manner.
IANA指南见第2节。以前，没有IANA对此类分配的指导。本文件的目的是使IANA能够以一致的方式根据这些指南管理号码分配。
This document also reserves some numbers for experimentation purposes. These numbers are given in Section 3.
本文件还保留了一些用于实验目的的数字。这些数字在第3节中给出。
The following rules apply to the fields of ARP:
以下规则适用于ARP的字段：
ar$hrd (16 bits) Hardware address space
ar$hrd（16位）硬件地址空间
Requests for ar$hrd values below 256 or for a batch of more than one new value are made through Expert Review [RFC5226].
通过专家评审[RFC5226]提出ar$hrd值低于256或一批多个新值的请求。
Note that certain protocols, such as BOOTP and DHCPv4, employ these values within an 8-bit field. The expert should determine that a need to allocate the new values exists and that the existing values are insufficient to represent the new hardware address types. The expert should also determine the applicability of the request and assign values higher than 255 for requests that do not apply to BOOTP/DHCPv4. Similarly, the expert should assign 1-octet values for requests that apply to BOOTP/DHCPv4, as for example the "IPsec tunnel" with value 31 [RFC3456]. Conversely, ARP-only uses, without a foreseeable reason to use the same value in BOOTP/DHCPv4, should favor 2-octet values.
请注意，某些协议（如BOOTP和DHCPv4）在8位字段中使用这些值。专家应确定存在分配新值的需要，并且现有值不足以表示新的硬件地址类型。专家还应确定请求的适用性，并为不适用于BOOTP/DHCPv4的请求分配大于255的值。类似地，专家应该为适用于BOOTP/DHCPv4的请求分配1-octet值，例如值为31的“IPsec隧道”[RFC3456]。相反，ARP只使用2个八位字节的值，而在BOOTP/DHCPv4中使用相同的值没有可预见的原因。
Requests for individual new ar$hrd values that do not specify a value, or where the requested value is greater than 255, are made through First Come First Served [RFC5226]. The assignment will always result in a 2-octet value.
通过先到先得[RFC5226]请求未指定值或请求值大于255的单个新ar$hrd值。赋值将始终产生2个八位组的值。
ar$pro (16 bits) Protocol address space
ar$pro（16位）协议地址空间
These numbers share the Ethertype space. The Ethertype space is administered as described in [RFC5342].
这些数字共享Ethertype空间。Ethertype空间的管理如[RFC5342]所述。
ar$op (16 bits) Opcode
ar$op（16位）操作码
Requests for new ar$op values are made through IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC5226].
通过IETF审查或IESG批准[RFC5226]提出新ar$op值的请求。
When testing new protocol extension ideas, it is often necessary to use an actual constant in order to use the new function, even when testing in a closed environment. This document reserves the following numbers for experimentation purposes in ARP:
在测试新的协议扩展思想时，通常需要使用一个实际常数来使用新函数，即使在封闭环境中进行测试也是如此。本文件保留以下数字，以供ARP试验之用：
o Two new ar$hrd values are allocated for experimental purposes: HW_EXP1 (36) and HW_EXP2 (256). Note that these two new values were purposely chosen so that one would be below 256 and the other would be above 255, and so that there would be different values in the least and most significant octets.
o 分配两个新的ar$hrd值用于实验目的：HW_EXP1（36）和HW_EXP2（256）。请注意，这两个新值是特意选择的，以便一个值低于256，另一个值高于255，并且在最低和最高有效的八位字节中会有不同的值。
o Two new values for the ar$op are allocated for experimental purposes: OP_EXP1 (24) and OP_EXP2 (25).
o ar$op的两个新值分配用于实验目的：op_EXP1（24）和op_EXP2（25）。
Note that Appendix B.2 of [RFC5342] lists two Ethertypes that can be used for experimental purposes.
请注意，[RFC5342]的附录B.2列出了两种可用于实验目的的醚型。
In addition, for both ar$hrd and ar$op, the values 0 and 65535 are marked as reserved. This means that they are not available for allocation.
此外，对于ar$hrd和ar$op，值0和65535都标记为保留。这意味着它们不可分配。
This specification does not change the security properties of the affected protocols.
此规范不会更改受影响协议的安全属性。
However, a few words are necessary about the use of the experimental code points defined in Section 3. Potentially harmful side effects from the use of the experimental values need to be carefully evaluated before deploying any experiment across networks that the owner of the experiment does not entirely control. Guidance given in [RFC3692] about the use of experimental values needs to be followed.
然而，关于第3节中定义的实验代码点的使用，有必要说几句话。在跨实验所有者无法完全控制的网络部署任何实验之前，需要仔细评估使用实验值可能产生的有害副作用。需要遵循[RFC3692]中关于使用实验值的指南。
The lack of any current rules has come up as new values were requested from IANA, who contacted the IESG for advice. The author would like to thank Michelle Cotton in particular for bringing up this issue. The author would also like to thank Brian Carpenter, Thomas Narten, Scott Bradner, Donald Eastlake, Andrew G. Malis, Brian Haberman, Robert Sparks, Larry Zhu, and Dave Thaler for feedback.
由于IANA要求提供新的值，因此出现了缺乏任何现行规则的情况，IANA已联系IESG寻求建议。作者要特别感谢Michelle Cotton提出这个问题。作者还要感谢Brian Carpenter、Thomas Narten、Scott Bradner、Donald Eastlake、Andrew G.Malis、Brian Haberman、Robert Sparks、Larry Zhu和Dave Thaler的反馈。
[RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37, RFC 826, November 1982.
[RFC0826]Plummer，D.，“以太网地址解析协议：或将网络协议地址转换为48位以太网地址，以便在以太网硬件上传输”，STD 37，RFC 826，1982年11月。
[RFC0951] Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 951, September 1985.
[RFC0951]Croft，B.和J.Gilmore，“引导协议”，RFC 9511985年9月。
[RFC1044] Hardwick, K. and J. Lekashman, "Internet Protocol on Network System's HYPERchannel: Protocol specification", STD 45, RFC 1044, February 1988.
[RFC1044]Hardwick，K.和J.Lekashman，“网络系统超通道上的互联网协议：协议规范”，STD 45，RFC 1044，1988年2月。
[RFC1329] Kuehn, P., "Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI Networks", RFC 1329, May 1992.
[RFC1329]Kuehn，P.，“关于双MAC FDDI网络地址解析的思考”，RFC1329，1992年5月。
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC2131]Droms，R.，“动态主机配置协议”，RFC21311997年3月。
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[RFC2132]Alexander，S.和R.Droms，“DHCP选项和BOOTP供应商扩展”，RFC 21321997年3月。
[RFC2176] Murakami, K. and M. Maruyama, "IPv4 over MAPOS Version 1", RFC 2176, June 1997.
[RFC2176]Murakami，K.和M.Maruyama，“基于MAPOS版本1的IPv4”，RFC 2176，1997年6月。
[RFC2225] Laubach, M. and J. Halpern, "Classical IP and ARP over ATM", RFC 2225, April 1998.
[RFC2225]Laubach，M.和J.Halpern，“ATM上的经典IP和ARP”，RFC 2225，1998年4月。
[RFC2834] Pittet, J., "ARP and IP Broadcast over HIPPI-800", RFC 2834, May 2000.
[RFC2834]Pittet，J.，“HIPPI-800上的ARP和IP广播”，RFC 28342000年5月。
[RFC2835] Pittet, J., "IP and ARP over HIPPI-6400 (GSN)", RFC 2835, May 2000.
[RFC2835]Pittet，J.，“HIPPI-6400（GSN）上的IP和ARP”，RFC 28352000年5月。
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3315]Droms，R.，Bound，J.，Volz，B.，Lemon，T.，Perkins，C.，和M.Carney，“IPv6的动态主机配置协议（DHCPv6）”，RFC3315，2003年7月。
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[RFC3692]Narten，T.，“分配被认为有用的实验和测试数字”，BCP 82，RFC 3692，2004年1月。
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006.
[RFC4338]DeSanti，C.，Carlson，C.，和R.Nixon，“通过光纤通道传输IPv6，IPv4和地址解析协议（ARP）数据包”，RFC 4338，2006年1月。
[RFC4361] Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-specific Client Identifiers for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version Four (DHCPv4)", RFC 4361, February 2006.
[RFC4361]Lemon，T.和B.Sommerfeld，“动态主机配置协议第四版（DHCPv4）的节点特定客户端标识符”，RFC 4361，2006年2月。
[RFC4701] Stapp, M., Lemon, T., and A. Gustafsson, "A DNS Resource Record (RR) for Encoding Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Information (DHCID RR)", RFC 4701, October 2006.
[RFC4701]Stapp，M.，Lemon，T.，和A.Gustafsson，“用于编码动态主机配置协议（DHCP）信息（DHCID RR）的DNS资源记录（RR）”，RFC 47012006年10月。
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，2008年5月。
[RFC5342] Eastlake. , D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342, September 2008.
[RFC5342]东湖，D.，“IEEE 802参数的IANA考虑因素和IETF协议使用”，BCP 141，RFC 5342，2008年9月。
[RFC0903] Finlayson, R., Mann, T., Mogul, J., and M. Theimer, "Reverse Address Resolution Protocol", STD 38, RFC 903, June 1984.
[RFC0903]Finlayson，R.，Mann，T.，Mogul，J.，和M.Theimer，“反向地址解析协议”，STD 38，RFC 903，1984年6月。
[RFC1931] Brownell, D., "Dynamic RARP Extensions for Automatic Network Address Acquisition", RFC 1931, April 1996.
[RFC1931]Brownell，D.，“用于自动网络地址获取的动态RARP扩展”，RFC 19311996年4月。
[RFC2390] Bradley, T., Brown, C., and A. Malis, "Inverse Address Resolution Protocol", RFC 2390, September 1998.
[RFC2390]Bradley，T.，Brown，C.和A.Malis，“反向地址解析协议”，RFC 23901998年9月。
[RFC3456] Patel, B., Aboba, B., Kelly, S., and V. Gupta, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4) Configuration of IPsec Tunnel Mode", RFC 3456, January 2003.
[RFC3456]Patel，B.，Aboba，B.，Kelly，S.，和V.Gupta，“IPsec隧道模式的动态主机配置协议（DHCPv4）配置”，RFC 3456，2003年1月。
This document specifies only the IANA rules associated with various fields in ARP. The specification of these rules also affects the allocation of corresponding fields in protocols listed in Section 1 that share the registry. This document does not make any changes in the operation of these protocols themselves.
本文档仅指定与ARP中各个字段相关联的IANA规则。这些规则的规范还影响第1节中列出的共享注册表的协议中相应字段的分配。本文件不对这些协议本身的操作进行任何更改。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Jari Arkko Ericsson Jorvas 02420 Finland
雅丽爱立信芬兰公司02420
EMail: jari.arkko@piuha.net
EMail: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems 7200-12 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA
Carlos Pignataro思科系统7200-12美国北卡罗来纳州Kit Creek路研究三角公园，邮编27709
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com