Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 6328 Huawei
BCP: 164 July 2011
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 6328 Huawei
BCP: 164 July 2011
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers
网络层协议标识符的IANA注意事项
Abstract
摘要
Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission) Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID). This document provides NLPID IANA considerations.
IETF正在开发或扩展的一些协议使用ISO/IEC（国际标准化组织/国际电工委员会）网络层协议标识符（NLPID）。本文档提供了NLPID IANA注意事项。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
本备忘录记录了互联网最佳实践。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关BCP的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6328.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6328.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2011 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。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。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. NLPIDs ..........................................................3
2.1. Sub-Ranges of the NLPID ....................................3
2.2. Code Point 0x80 ............................................4
2.3. NLPIDs Available for IANA Allocation .......................4
3. IANA Considerations .............................................5
4. Security Considerations .........................................5
5. References ......................................................5
5.1. Normative References .......................................5
5.2. Informative References .....................................6
6. Acknowledgements ................................................7
Appendix A. Initial IANA NLPID Web Page ............................8
Appendix B. RFC References to NLPID ................................9
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. NLPIDs ..........................................................3
2.1. Sub-Ranges of the NLPID ....................................3
2.2. Code Point 0x80 ............................................4
2.3. NLPIDs Available for IANA Allocation .......................4
3. IANA Considerations .............................................5
4. Security Considerations .........................................5
5. References ......................................................5
5.1. Normative References .......................................5
5.2. Informative References .....................................6
6. Acknowledgements ................................................7
Appendix A. Initial IANA NLPID Web Page ............................8
Appendix B. RFC References to NLPID ................................9
Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission) Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID).
IETF正在开发或扩展的一些协议使用ISO/IEC（国际标准化组织/国际电工委员会）网络层协议标识符（NLPID）。
The term "NLPID" is not actually used in [ISO9577], which refers to one-octet IPIs (Initial Protocol Identifiers) and SPIs (Subsequent Protocol Identifiers). While these are two logically separate kinds of one-octet identifiers, most values are usable as both an IPI and an SPI. In the remainder of this document, the term NLPID is used for such values.
术语“NLPID”在[ISO9577]中并未实际使用，它指的是一个八位组IPI（初始协议标识符）和SPI（后续协议标识符）。虽然这是两种逻辑上独立的一个八位字节标识符，但大多数值都可用作IPI和SPI。在本文件的其余部分中，术语NLPID用于此类值。
The registry of NLPID values is maintained by ISO/IEC by updating [ISO9577]. The procedure specified by ISO/IEC in that document is that an NLPID code point can be allocated without approval by ISO/IEC, as long as the code point is not in a range of values categorized for an organization other than the organization allocating the code point and as long as ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 is informed.
NLPID值的注册表由ISO/IEC通过更新[ISO9577]来维护。ISO/IEC在该文件中规定的程序是，只要NLPID代码点不在分配代码点的组织以外的组织的分类值范围内，并且只要通知ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6，则可以在未经ISO/IEC批准的情况下分配NLPID代码点。
This document provides NLPID IANA considerations. That is, it specifies the level of IETF approval necessary for a code point to be allocated for IETF use, the procedures to be used and actions to be taken by IANA in connection with NLPIDs, and related guidelines.
本文档提供了NLPID IANA注意事项。也就是说，它规定了分配给IETF使用的代码点所需的IETF批准级别、IANA与NLPIDs相关的程序和行动以及相关指南。
[RFC5226] is incorporated herein except to the extent that there are contrary provisions in this document.
[RFC5226]并入本文件，除非本文件中有相反规定。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
[ISO9577] defines one-octet network layer protocol identifiers that are commonly called NLPIDs, which is the term used in this document.
[ISO9577]定义了一个八位网络层协议标识符，通常称为NLPIDs，这是本文档中使用的术语。
NLPIDs are used in a number of protocols. For example, in the mar$pro.type field of the multicast address resolution server protocol [RFC2022], the ar$pro.type field of the NBMA (Non-Broadcast Multi-Access) next hop resolution protocol [RFC2332] and in the IS-IS Protocols Supported TLV [RFC1195]. See Appendix B.
NLPID用于许多协议中。例如，在多播地址解析服务器协议[RFC2022]的mar$pro.type字段中，NBMA（非广播多址）下一跳解析协议[RFC2332]的ar$pro.type字段以及支持TLV[RFC1195]的IS-IS协议中。见附录B。
Sub-ranges of the possible NLPID values are categorized by [ISO9577] for organizations as shown below, primarily for the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission) and the ITU-T (International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector):
对于如下所示的组织，可能的NLPID值的子范围由[ISO9577]分类，主要针对ISO/IEC（国际标准化组织/国际电工委员会）和ITU-T（国际电信联盟-电信标准化部门）：
Code Point Category
---------- --------
0x00 ISO/IEC
0x01-0x0F ITU-T
0x10-0x3F ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0x40-0x43 ISO/IEC
0x44 ITU-T
0x45-0x4F ISO/IEC
0x50-0x6F ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0x70-0x7F Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
0x80 ISO/IEC (see Section 2.2)
0x81-0x8F ISO/IEC
0x90-0xAF ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0xB0-0xBF ITU-T
0xC0-0xCF Potentially available for IANA (see Section 2.3)
0xD0-0xEF ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0xF0-0xFE Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
0xFF Reserved for an Extension mechanism to be
jointly developed by ITU-T and ISO/IEC
Code Point Category
---------- --------
0x00 ISO/IEC
0x01-0x0F ITU-T
0x10-0x3F ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0x40-0x43 ISO/IEC
0x44 ITU-T
0x45-0x4F ISO/IEC
0x50-0x6F ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0x70-0x7F Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
0x80 ISO/IEC (see Section 2.2)
0x81-0x8F ISO/IEC
0x90-0xAF ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0xB0-0xBF ITU-T
0xC0-0xCF Potentially available for IANA (see Section 2.3)
0xD0-0xEF ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0xF0-0xFE Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
0xFF Reserved for an Extension mechanism to be
jointly developed by ITU-T and ISO/IEC
NLPID 0x80 is known as the IEEE (Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers) SNAP (SubNetwork Access Protocol) code point. It is followed by five octets, using the IEEE SNAP SAP (Service Access Point) conventions, to specify the protocol. Those conventions are described in Section 3 of [RFC5342]. In particular, it is valid for such a five-octet sequence to start with the IANA OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) followed by two further octets assigned by IANA as provided in [RFC5342]. The same IANA registry is used for such protocol identifiers whether they are planned to be introduced by the 0x80 NLPID or the IEEE SNAP SAP LSAPs (Link-Layer Service Access Points) (0xAAAA). Values allocated by IANA may be used in either context as appropriate.
NLPID 0x80被称为IEEE（电气和电子工程师协会）SNAP（子网络访问协议）代码点。然后是五个八位字节，使用IEEE SNAP SAP（服务访问点）约定来指定协议。[RFC5342]第3节描述了这些约定。特别是，按照[RFC5342]中的规定，这种五个八位组序列从IANA OUI（组织唯一标识符）开始，然后再由IANA分配两个八位组是有效的。无论0x80 NLPID或IEEE SNAP SAP LSAP（链路层服务接入点）（0xAAAA）计划引入这些协议标识符，都使用相同的IANA注册表。IANA分配的值可在任何上下文中使用（视情况而定）。
Because of the limited number of NLPID code points available for IANA allocation, use of the IEEE SNAP NLPID is RECOMMENDED rather than allocation of a new one-octet NLPID code point.
由于IANA分配可用的NLPID代码点数量有限，建议使用IEEE SNAP NLPID，而不是分配一个新的八位字节NLPID代码点。
A limited number of code points are available that could be allocated by IANA under [ISO9577]. Because of this, it is desirable, where practical, to use code point 0x80, as discussed in Section 2.2 above, or to get code points allocated from the ranges categorized to other organizations. For example, code point 0x8E was allocated for IPv6 [RFC2460], although it is in a range of code points categorized for ISO/IEC. One-byte code points are assigned to TRILL and IEEE 802.1aq as they are intended for use within the IS-IS Protocols Supported TLV [RFC1195].
IANA可根据[ISO9577]分配的代码点数量有限。因此，在可行的情况下，如上文第2.2节所述，最好使用代码点0x80，或者从分类到其他组织的范围中获得代码点。例如，代码点0x8E分配给IPv6[RFC2460]，尽管它在ISO/IEC分类的代码点范围内。单字节代码点分配给TRILL和IEEE 802.1aq，因为它们用于受TLV支持的IS-IS协议[RFC1195]。
The table below, which includes two new code point allocations made by this document, shows those still available.
下表显示了仍然可用的代码点分配，其中包括本文档所做的两个新代码点分配。
Code Point Status
---------- --------
0xC0 TRILL [RFC6325]
0xC1 IEEE 802.1aq [802.1aq]
0xC2-0xCB Available
0xCC IPv4 [RFC791]
0xCD-0xCE Available
0xCF PPP [RFC1661]
Code Point Status
---------- --------
0xC0 TRILL [RFC6325]
0xC1 IEEE 802.1aq [802.1aq]
0xC2-0xCB Available
0xCC IPv4 [RFC791]
0xCD-0xCE Available
0xCF PPP [RFC1661]
As long as code points are available, IANA will allocate additional values when required by applying the IETF Review policy as per [RFC5226].
只要代码点可用，IANA将根据[RFC5226]应用IETF审查政策，在需要时分配额外值。
Whenever it allocates an NLPID, IANA will inform the IETF liaison to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 (Joint Technical Committee 1, Study Committee 6) [JTC1SC6], or if IANA is unable to determine that IETF liaison, the IAB. The liaison (or the IAB) will then ensure that ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 is informed so that [ISO9577] can be updated since ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 is the body that maintains [ISO9577]. To simplify this process, it is desirable that the IAB maintain an IETF liaison to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6.
无论何时分配NLPID，IANA都将通知IETF联络人ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6（联合技术委员会1，研究委员会6）[JTC1SC6]，或者如果IANA无法确定IETF联络人，IAB。联络员（或IAB）将确保通知ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6，以便更新[ISO9577]，因为ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6是维护[ISO9577]的机构。为了简化这一过程，IAB最好与ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6保持IETF联络。
This document allocates the code points 0xC0 and 0xC1 as shown in Section 2.3 and IANA shall request the liaison (or the IAB) to so inform ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6.
本文件分配代码点0xC0和0xC1，如第2.3节所示，IANA应要求联络人（或IAB）通知ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6。
IANA maintains a web page showing NLPIDs that have been allocated to a protocol being developed or extended by the IETF or are otherwise of interest. The initial state of the web page is as shown in Appendix A. IANA will update this web page for (1) NLPIDs allocated by IANA and (2) other allocations or de-allocations when IANA is requested to make such changes to this web page by the IETF liaison mentioned above.
IANA维护一个网页，显示已分配给IETF正在开发或扩展的协议的NLPID或其他感兴趣的NLPID。该网页的初始状态如附录A所示。当IETF联络人要求IANA对该网页进行此类更改时，IANA将更新该网页（1）IANA分配的NLPID和（2）其他分配或取消分配。
This document is concerned with allocation of NLPIDs. It is not directly concerned with security.
本文件涉及NLPID的分配。它与安全没有直接关系。
[ISO9577] International Organization for Standardization "Information technology - Telecommunications and Information exchange between systems - Protocol identification in the network layer", ISO/IEC TR 9577:1999, 1999-12-15.
[ISO9577]国际标准化组织“信息技术-系统间电信和信息交换-网络层协议识别”，ISO/IEC TR 9577:1999，1999-12-15。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3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 3rd., D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342, September 2008.
[RFC5342]Eastlake 3rd.，D.，“IEEE802参数的IANA考虑因素和IETF协议使用”，BCP 141，RFC 5342，2008年9月。
[RFC6325] Radia, P., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A. Ghanwani, "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.
[RFC6325]Radia，P.，Eastlake，D.，Dutt，D.，Gai，S.，和A.Ghanwani，“RBridges:基本协议规范”，RFC 63252011年7月。
[802.1aq] Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks / Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 9: Shortest Path Bridging, Draft IEEE P802.1aq/D2.1, 21 August 2009.
[802.1aq]局域网和城域网/虚拟桥接局域网标准/修改件9：最短路径桥接，IEEE P802.1aq/D2.11909年8月21日草案。
[JTC1SC6] ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 (International Organization for
Standardization / International Electrotechnical
Commission, Joint Technical Committee 1, Study Committee
6), http://www.iso.org/iso/
iso_technical_committee.html?commid=45072
[JTC1SC6] ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 (International Organization for
Standardization / International Electrotechnical
Commission, Joint Technical Committee 1, Study Committee
6), http://www.iso.org/iso/
iso_technical_committee.html?commid=45072
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[RFC791]Postel，J.，“互联网协议”，标准5，RFC7911981年9月。
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC1195]Callon，R.，“OSI IS-IS在TCP/IP和双环境中的路由使用”，RFC 11951990年12月。
[RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[RFC1661]辛普森，W.，编辑，“点对点协议（PPP）”，标准51，RFC1661，1994年7月。
[RFC1707] McGovern, M. and R. Ullmann, "CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet", RFC 1707, October 1994.
[RFC1707]McGovern，M.和R.Ullmann，“CATNIP：互联网的通用架构”，RFC 1707，1994年10月。
[RFC2022] Armitage, G., "Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks", RFC 2022, November 1996.
[RFC2022]Armitage，G.“支持基于UNI 3.0/3.1的ATM网络上的多播”，RFC 2022，1996年11月。
[RFC2332] Luciani, J., Katz, D., Piscitello, D., Cole, B., and N. Doraswamy, "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)", RFC 2332, April 1998.
[RFC2332]Luciani，J.，Katz，D.，Piscitello，D.，Cole，B.，和N.Doraswamy，“NBMA下一跳解析协议（NHRP）”，RFC 2332，1998年4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。
The contributions and support of the following people, listed in alphabetic order, are gratefully acknowledged:
感谢以下人员的贡献和支持（按字母顺序排列）：
Ayan Banerjee, Gonzalo Camarillo, Dinesh Dutt, Don Fedyk, Alfred Hines, Russ Housley, Andrew Malis, Radia Perlman, Dan Romascanu, and Peter Ashwood-Smith.
阿扬·班纳吉、冈萨洛·卡马里洛、迪内什·杜特、唐·费迪克、阿尔弗雷德·海因斯、罗斯·霍斯利、安德鲁·马利斯、拉迪亚·帕尔曼、丹·罗马斯坎努和彼得·阿什伍德·史密斯。
NLPIDs of Interest
兴趣爱好
Code Point Use
---------- --------
0x00 Null
0x08 Q.933 (RFC 2427)
0x80 IEEE SNAP (RFC 6328)
0x81 ISO CLNP (Connectionless Network Protocol)
0x82 ISO ES-IS
0x83 IS-IS (RFC 1195)
0x8E IPv6 (RFC 2460)
0xB0 FRF.9 (RFC 2427)
0xB1 FRF.12 (RF C2427)
0xC0 TRILL (RFC 6325)
0xC1 IEEE 802.1aq
0xCC IPv4 (RFC 791)
0xCF PPP (RFC 1661)
Code Point Use
---------- --------
0x00 Null
0x08 Q.933 (RFC 2427)
0x80 IEEE SNAP (RFC 6328)
0x81 ISO CLNP (Connectionless Network Protocol)
0x82 ISO ES-IS
0x83 IS-IS (RFC 1195)
0x8E IPv6 (RFC 2460)
0xB0 FRF.9 (RFC 2427)
0xB1 FRF.12 (RF C2427)
0xC0 TRILL (RFC 6325)
0xC1 IEEE 802.1aq
0xCC IPv4 (RFC 791)
0xCF PPP (RFC 1661)
Note: According to [RFC1707], NLPID 0x70 was assigned to IPv7. That assignment appears to no longer be in effect as it is not listed in ISO/IEC 9577. IPv7 was itself a temporary code point assignment made while a decision was being made between three candidates for the next generation of IP after IPv4. Those candidates were assigned IPv6, IPv7, and IPv8. IPv6 was selected.
注：根据[RFC1707]，NLPID 0x70分配给IPv7。由于ISO/IEC 9577中未列出该分配，因此该分配似乎不再有效。IPv7本身是在IPv4之后的下一代IP的三个候选者之间做出决定时进行的临时代码点分配。这些候选者被分配到IPv6、IPv7和IPv8。已选择IPv6。
The following RFCs, issued before the end of March 2009, excluding other survey RFCs and obsolete RFCs, reference the NLPID as such:
2009年3月底之前发布的以下RFC（不包括其他调查RFC和过时RFC）引用了NLPID：
RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode RFC 1377 The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP) RFC 1661 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) RFC 1707 CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet RFC 1755 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode PIM RFC 2363 PPP Over FUNI RFC 2390 Inverse Address Resolution Protocol RFC 2427 Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay RFC 2590 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification RFC 2684 Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5 RFC 2955 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and Controlling the Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service Interworking Function RFC 3070 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over Frame Relay RFC 5308 Routing IPv6 with IS-IS
RFC 1195使用OSI IS-IS在TCP/IP和双环境中进行路由RFC 1356 X.25和ISDN上的多协议互连分组模式RFC 1377 PPP OSI网络层控制协议（OSINCP）RFC 1661点对点协议（PPP）RFC 1707 CATNIP：互联网通用架构RFC 1755 ATM信令支持IP over ATM RFC 2022支持基于UNI 3.0/3.1的ATM网络上的多播RFC 2332 NBMA下一跳解析协议（NHRP）RFC 2337 ATM上路由器间的LIS内IP多播使用稀疏模式PIM RFC 2363 PPP over FUNI RFC 2390反向地址解析协议RFC 2427多协议互连over Frame Relay RFC 2590 IPv6数据包在帧中继网络上的传输规范RFC 2684 ATM适配层5 RFC上的多协议封装2955用于监视和控制帧中继/ATM PVC服务互通功能的受管对象定义RFC 3070帧中继上的第二层隧道协议（L2TP）RFC 5308通过IS-IS路由IPv6
Author's Address
作者地址
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Huawei Technologies 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA
Donald E.Eastlake第三华为技术有限公司美国马萨诸塞州米尔福德海狸街155号01757
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com