Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Pignataro
Request for Comments: 6814 Cisco Systems
Obsoletes: 1385, 1393, 1475, 1770 F. Gont
Category: Standards Track UTN-FRH / SI6 Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2012
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Pignataro
Request for Comments: 6814 Cisco Systems
Obsoletes: 1385, 1393, 1475, 1770 F. Gont
Category: Standards Track UTN-FRH / SI6 Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2012
Formally Deprecating Some IPv4 Options
正式否决某些IPv4选项
Abstract
摘要
A number of IPv4 options have become obsolete in practice, but have never been formally deprecated. This document deprecates such IPv4 options, thus cleaning up the corresponding IANA registry. Additionally, it obsoletes RFCs 1385, 1393, 1475, and 1770, and requests that the RFC Editor change their status to Historic.
许多IPv4选项在实践中已经过时，但从未被正式否决过。本文档不推荐此类IPv4选项，从而清理了相应的IANA注册表。此外，它淘汰了RFC 1385、1393、1475和1770，并请求RFC编辑器将其状态更改为历史。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
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 Internet Standards 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。有关互联网标准的更多信息，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/rfc6814.
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/rfc6814.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2012 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. Discussion of Deprecated Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Stream ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Extended Internet Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. ENCODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5. VISA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.6. Address Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.7. Selective Directed Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.8. Dynamic Packet State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.9. Upstream Multicast Pkt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Changing the Status of the Corresponding RFCs to Historic . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Discussion of Deprecated Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Stream ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Extended Internet Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. ENCODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5. VISA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.6. Address Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.7. Selective Directed Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.8. Dynamic Packet State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.9. Upstream Multicast Pkt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Changing the Status of the Corresponding RFCs to Historic . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) [RFC791] provides for expansion of the protocol by supporting a number of "options" in the variable-length IPv4 header. IPv4 options are identified by an option "type" value, whose registration is managed by IANA [IANA-IP]. A number of IPv4 options have become obsolete in practice, but have never been formally deprecated. This document deprecates such IPv4 options, thus cleaning up the corresponding IANA registry.
Internet协议版本4（IPv4）[RFC791]通过在可变长度IPv4报头中支持许多“选项”来扩展协议。IPv4选项由选项“type”值标识，其注册由IANA[IANA-IP]管理。许多IPv4选项在实践中已经过时，但从未被正式否决过。本文档不推荐此类IPv4选项，从而清理了相应的IANA注册表。
This document also obsoletes [RFC1385], [RFC1393], [RFC1475], and [RFC1770], and requests that the RFC Editor change their status to Historic.
本文件还废除了[RFC1385]、[RFC1393]、[RFC1475]和[RFC1770]，并要求RFC编辑器将其状态更改为历史。
The following subsections discuss the options being deprecated. No other reference information has been found.
以下小节将讨论不推荐使用的选项。未找到其他参考信息。
The Stream ID option is obsolete. It is specified in RFC 791 [RFC791], and is deprecated in Section 3.2.1.8 of RFC 1122 [RFC1122] and Section 4.2.2.1 of RFC 1812 [RFC1812].
流ID选项已过时。它在RFC 791[RFC791]中有规定，在RFC 1122[RFC1122]第3.2.1.8节和RFC 1812[RFC1812]第4.2.2.1节中被弃用。
The Extended Internet Protocol option is defined in [RFC1385] and is superseded by [RFC2460].
扩展互联网协议选项在[RFC1385]中定义，并由[RFC2460]取代。
The Traceroute option is defined in [RFC1393]. The Traceroute option is defined as Experimental; it was never widely deployed on the public Internet.
Traceroute选项在[RFC1393]中定义。Traceroute选项被定义为实验性的；它从未在公共互联网上广泛部署。
This option was used for experimentation around IP-layer encryption. No products are known to ever have shipped with support for this option.
此选项用于围绕IP层加密的实验。目前还没有已知的产品附带此选项的支持。
This option was part of an experiment [VISA87] [VISA89] at USC and was never widely deployed.
此选项是USC试验[VISA87][VISA89]的一部分，从未广泛部署。
The Address Extension option is defined in an Experimental RFC [RFC1475] and marked as IPv7. IPv7 was never widely deployed.
地址扩展选项在实验RFC[RFC1475]中定义，并标记为IPv7。IPv7从未广泛部署。
The Selective Directed Broadcast option was originally defined in [RFC1770]. This option was never widely deployed and the approach was abandoned.
选择性定向广播选项最初在[RFC1770]中定义。这一选择从未被广泛采用，这种方法也被放弃。
The Dynamic Packet State option was specified in [DIFFSERV-DPS]. The aforementioned document was meant to be published as Experimental, but it never became an RFC. The IP option was never widely deployed.
[DIFFSERV-DPS]中指定了动态数据包状态选项。上述文件本打算作为实验性文件发布，但从未成为RFC。IP选项从未广泛部署。
2.9. Upstream Multicast Pkt.
2.9. 上行多播Pkt。
This option was originally specified in [BIDIR-PIM]. Its use was deprecated by [RFC5015], which employs a control-plane mechanism to solve the problem of doing upstream forwarding of multicast packets on a multi-access LAN.
此选项最初在[BIDIR-PIM]中指定。[RFC5015]不赞成使用它，它使用控制平面机制来解决在多址LAN上进行多播数据包上游转发的问题。
The "IP OPTION NUMBERS" registry [IANA-IP] contains the list of currently assigned IP option numbers. This registry also denotes a deprecated IP Option Number by marking it with a footnote.
“IP选项编号”注册表[IANA-IP]包含当前分配的IP选项编号列表。此注册表还通过用脚注标记来表示已弃用的IP选项编号。
This document formally deprecates the following options. IANA has marked them as such in the corresponding registry [IANA-IP].
本文档正式反对以下选项。IANA已在相应的注册中心[IANA-IP]中对其进行了标记。
Copy Class Number Value Name Reference
---- ----- ------ ----- ------------------------------- ------------
1 0 8 136 SID - Stream ID [RFC791,JBP]
1 0 14 142 VISA - Experimental Access Control [Estrin]
0 0 15 15 ENCODE - ??? [VerSteeg]
1 0 17 145 EIP - Extended Internet Protocol [RFC1385]
0 2 18 82 TR - Traceroute [RFC1393]
1 0 19 147 ADDEXT - Address Extension [Ullmann IPv7]
1 0 21 149 SDB - Selective Directed Broadcast [Graff]
1 0 23 151 DPS - Dynamic Packet State [Malis]
1 0 24 152 UMP - Upstream Multicast Pkt. [Farinacci]
Copy Class Number Value Name Reference
---- ----- ------ ----- ------------------------------- ------------
1 0 8 136 SID - Stream ID [RFC791,JBP]
1 0 14 142 VISA - Experimental Access Control [Estrin]
0 0 15 15 ENCODE - ??? [VerSteeg]
1 0 17 145 EIP - Extended Internet Protocol [RFC1385]
0 2 18 82 TR - Traceroute [RFC1393]
1 0 19 147 ADDEXT - Address Extension [Ullmann IPv7]
1 0 21 149 SDB - Selective Directed Broadcast [Graff]
1 0 23 151 DPS - Dynamic Packet State [Malis]
1 0 24 152 UMP - Upstream Multicast Pkt. [Farinacci]
The IP options "MTU Probe" (MTUP, value 11) and "MTU Reply" (MTUR, value 12) were initially defined in [RFC1063] and have already been deprecated by [RFC1191].
IP选项“MTU探测”（MTUP，值11）和“MTU回复”（MTUR，值12）最初在[RFC1063]中定义，并且已经被[RFC1191]弃用。
Per this document, the RFC Editor has changed the status of [RFC1385], [RFC1393], [RFC1475], and [RFC1770] to Historic.
根据本文档，RFC编辑器已将[RFC1385]、[RFC1393]、[RFC1475]和[RFC1770]的状态更改为历史状态。
This document does not modify the security properties of the IPv4 options being deprecated.
本文档不会修改不推荐使用的IPv4选项的安全属性。
The authors would like to thank Ron Bonica for his guidance.
作者要感谢Ron Bonica的指导。
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Fred Baker, Deborah Estrin, Dino Farinacci, Andrew Malis, Gene Tsudik, and Bill VerSteeg for providing insights on some of the options being formally deprecated by this document.
作者要感谢Ran Atkinson、Fred Baker、Deborah Estrin、Dino Farinaci、Andrew Malis、Gene Tsudik和Bill VerSteeg就本文件正式反对的一些选项提供了见解。
[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。
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1122]Braden，R.，Ed.“互联网主机的要求-通信层”，STD 3，RFC 1122，1989年10月。
[BIDIR-PIM] Estrin, D. and D. Farinacci, "Bi-Directional Shared Trees in PIM-SM", Work in Progress, May 1999.
[BIDIR-PIM]Estrin，D.和D.Farinaci，“PIM-SM中的双向共享树”，正在进行的工作，1999年5月。
[DIFFSERV-DPS] Stoica, I., Zhang, H., Venkitaraman, N., and J. Mysore, "Per Hop Behaviors Based on Dynamic Packet State", Work in Progress, October 2002.
[DIFFSERV-DPS]Stoica，I.，Zhang，H.，Venkitaraman，N.，和J.Mysore，“基于动态数据包状态的每跳行为”，正在进行的工作，2002年10月。
[IANA-IP] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IP OPTION NUMBERS", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters>.
[IANA-IP]互联网分配号码管理局，“IP选项号码”<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters>.
[RFC1063] Mogul, J., Kent, C., Partridge, C., and K. McCloghrie, "IP MTU discovery options", RFC 1063, July 1988.
[RFC1063]Mogul，J.，Kent，C.，Partridge，C.，和K.McCloghrie，“IP MTU发现选项”，RFC 1063，1988年7月。
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, November 1990.
[RFC1191]Mogul，J.和S.Deering，“MTU发现路径”，RFC1191，1990年11月。
[RFC1385] Wang, Z., "EIP: The Extended Internet Protocol", RFC 1385, November 1992.
[RFC1385]Wang，Z.，“EIP：扩展互联网协议”，RFC1385，1992年11月。
[RFC1393] Malkin, G., "Traceroute Using an IP Option", RFC 1393, January 1993.
[RFC1393]Malkin，G.“使用IP选项的跟踪路由”，RFC 1393，1993年1月。
[RFC1475] Ullmann, R., "TP/IX: The Next Internet", RFC 1475, June 1993.
[RFC1475]Ullmann，R.，“TP/IX：下一个互联网”，RFC 14751993年6月。
[RFC1770] Graff, C., "IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-Destination Delivery", RFC 1770, March 1995.
[RFC1770]Graff，C.，“发送方定向多目的地交付的IPv4选项”，RFC1770，1995年3月。
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC1812]Baker，F.，Ed.，“IP版本4路由器的要求”，RFC 1812，1995年6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。
[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.
[RFC5015]Handley，M.，Kouvelas，I.，Speakman，T.，和L.Vicisano，“双向协议独立多播（BIDIR-PIM）”，RFC 50152007年10月。
[VISA87] Estrin, D. and G. Tsudik, "VISA Scheme for Inter-Organizational Network Security", IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), 1987.
[VISA87]Estrin，D.和G.Tsudik，“组织间网络安全的VISA方案”，IEEE安全与隐私研讨会（S&P），1987年。
[VISA89] Estrin, D., Mogul, J., and G. Tsudik, "VISA Protocols for Controlling Inter-Organizational Datagram Flow", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 1989.
[VISA89]Estrin，D.，Mogul，J.，和G.Tsudik，“控制组织间数据报流的VISA协议”，IEEE通信选定领域杂志，1989年。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems 7200-12 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 United States
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
Fernando Gont UTN-FRH / SI6 Networks Evaristo Carriego 2644 Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706 Argentina
Fernando Gont UTN-FRH/SI6 Networks Evaristo Carriego 2644 Haedo，布宜诺斯艾利斯省1706阿根廷
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
EMail: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: http://www.si6networks.com
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
EMail: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: http://www.si6networks.com