Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Zimmermann
Request for Comments: 7805
Obsoletes: 675 721 761 813 816 879 896 W. Eddy
6013 MTI Systems
Updates: 7414 L. Eggert
Category: Informational NetApp
ISSN: 2070-1721 April 2016
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Zimmermann
Request for Comments: 7805
Obsoletes: 675 721 761 813 816 879 896 W. Eddy
6013 MTI Systems
Updates: 7414 L. Eggert
Category: Informational NetApp
ISSN: 2070-1721 April 2016
Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-Related Documents to Historic or Informational Status
将过时的TCP扩展和TCP相关文档移动到历史或信息状态
Abstract
摘要
This document reclassifies several TCP extensions and TCP-related documents that either have been superseded, have never seen widespread use, or are no longer recommended for use to "Historic" status. The affected documents are RFCs 675, 721, 761, 813, 816, 879, 896, 1078, and 6013. Additionally, this document reclassifies RFCs 700, 794, 814, 817, 872, 889, 964, and 1071 to "Informational" status.
本文件将几个TCP扩展和TCP相关文件重新分类，这些文件或已被取代，或从未被广泛使用，或不再被推荐用于“历史”状态。受影响的文档是RFCs 675、721、761、813、816、879、896、1078和6013。此外，本文件将RFC 700、794、814、817、872、889、964和1071重新分类为“信息”状态。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
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). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see 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。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；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/rfc7805.
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/rfc7805.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2016 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. Status Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Moving to "Historic" Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Moving to "Informational" Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Status Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Moving to "Historic" Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Moving to "Informational" Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
TCP has a long history. Over time, many RFCs have accumulated that describe aspects of the TCP protocol, implementation, and extensions. Some of these have been superseded, are no longer recommended for use, or have simply never seen widespread use.
TCP有着悠久的历史。随着时间的推移，已经积累了许多描述TCP协议、实现和扩展方面的RFC。其中一些已经被取代，不再推荐使用，或者根本没有看到广泛使用。
Sections 6 and 7.1 of the TCP roadmap document [RFC7414] already reclassified a number of TCP extensions as "Historic" and describes the reasons for doing so, but it did not instruct the RFC Editor to change the status of these RFCs in the RFC database. The purpose of this document is to do just that.
TCP路线图文件[RFC7414]的第6节和第7.1节已经将许多TCP扩展重新分类为“历史”，并描述了这样做的原因，但没有指示RFC编辑器更改RFC数据库中这些RFC的状态。本文件的目的就是要做到这一点。
In addition, this document reclassifies all other documents mentioned in the TCP roadmap that currently have an "Unknown" status to either "Historic" or "Informational".
此外，本文件将TCP路线图中提到的所有其他当前处于“未知”状态的文件重新分类为“历史”或“信息”文件。
The following two sections give a short justification why a specific TCP extension or a TCP-related document is being reclassified as "Historic" or "Informational". In addition, the letter code after an RFC number indicates from which original status a particular RFC is changed to "Historic" or "Informational" (see BCP 9 [RFC2026] for an explanation of these categories):
以下两节简要说明了为什么将特定TCP扩展或与TCP相关的文档重新分类为“历史”或“信息”。此外，RFC编号后的字母代码表示特定RFC从哪个原始状态更改为“历史”或“信息”（有关这些类别的解释，请参见BCP 9[RFC2026]）：
S - Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or Internet Standard)
S-标准跟踪（建议标准、标准草案或互联网标准）
E - Experimental
电子实验
I - Informational
I-信息
H - Historic
H-历史
B - Best Current Practice
B-最佳现行做法
U - Unknown (not formally defined)
U-未知（未正式定义）
For the content of the documents itself, the reader is referred either to the corresponding RFC or, for a brief description, to the TCP roadmap document [RFC7414].
对于文档本身的内容，读者可以参考相应的RFC，或者参考TCP路线图文档[RFC7414]进行简要描述。
This document changes the status of the following RFCs to "Historic" [RFC2026]:
本文件将以下RFC的状态更改为“历史”[RFC2026]：
o [RFC675] U, "Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program" was replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC793]
o [RFC675]U，“互联网传输控制程序规范”被最终TCP规范[RFC793]取代
o [RFC721] U, "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host Protocol" was a proposal that was not incorporated into the final TCP specification [RFC793]
o [RFC721]U，“主机对主机协议中的带外控制信号”是一项未纳入最终TCP规范的提案[RFC793]
o [RFC761] U, "DoD Standard Transmission Control Protocol" was replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC793]
o [RFC761]U，“国防部标准传输控制协议”被最终TCP规范[RFC793]取代
o [RFC813] U, "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" was incorporated into [RFC1122]
o [RFC813]U，“TCP中的窗口和确认策略”被纳入[RFC1122]
o [RFC816] U, "Fault Isolation and Recovery" was incorporated into [RFC1122] and [RFC5461]
o [RFC816]U，“故障隔离和恢复”被纳入[RFC1122]和[RFC5461]
o [RFC879] U, "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics" was incorporated into [RFC1122] and [RFC6691]
o [RFC879]U，“TCP最大段大小和相关主题”被纳入[RFC1122]和[RFC6691]
o [RFC896] U, "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" was incorporated into [RFC1122] and [RFC6633]
o [RFC896]U，“IP/TCP互联网络中的拥塞控制”已并入[RFC1122]和[RFC6633]
o [RFC1078] U, "TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" should be deprecated, because:
o [RFC1078]U，“TCP端口服务多路复用器（TCPMUX）”应该被弃用，因为：
* It modifies the TCP connection establishment semantics by also completing the three-way handshake when a service is not available. * It requires all new connections to be received on a single port, which limits the number of connections between two machines. * It complicates firewall implementation and management because all services share the same port number. * There are very limited deployments, and these are not used in an Internet context. (The only reported use is for SGI's Data Migration Facility in private networks.)
* 它通过在服务不可用时完成三方握手来修改TCP连接建立语义。*它要求在单个端口上接收所有新连接，这限制了两台机器之间的连接数。*它使防火墙的实施和管理变得复杂，因为所有服务共享相同的端口号。*部署非常有限，并且不在Internet环境中使用。（唯一报告的用途是专用网络中的SGI数据迁移设施。）
o [RFC6013] E, "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)" should be deprecated (although only published in 2011) because:
o [RFC6013]E，“TCP Cookie事务（TCPCT）”应该被弃用（尽管只在2011年发布），因为：
* It uses the experimental TCP option codepoints, which prohibit a large-scale deployment. * [RFC7413] and [TCP-EDO] are alternatives that have more "rough consensus and running code" behind them. * There are no known wide-scale deployments.
* 它使用实验性TCP选项代码点，禁止大规模部署。*[RFC7413]和[TCP-EDO]是具有更多“粗略共识和运行代码”的备选方案。*没有已知的大规模部署。
This document changes the status of the following RFCs to "Informational" [RFC2026]:
本文档将以下RFC的状态更改为“信息性”[RFC2026]：
o [RFC700] U, "A Protocol Experiment", which presents a field report about the deployment of a very early version of TCP
o [RFC700]U，“协议实验”，它提供了一份关于TCP早期版本部署的现场报告
o [RFC794] U, "Pre-emption", which recommends that operating systems need to manage their limited resources, which may include TCP connection state
o [RFC794]U，“抢占”，它建议操作系统需要管理其有限的资源，其中可能包括TCP连接状态
o [RFC814] U, "Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes", which gives guidance on designing tables and algorithms to keep track of various identifiers within a TCP/IP implementation
o [RFC814]U，“名称、地址、端口和路由”，提供了设计表和算法的指导，以跟踪TCP/IP实现中的各种标识符
o [RFC817] U, "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation", which contains general implementation suggestions
o [RFC817]U，“协议实现中的模块化和效率”，其中包含一般实现建议
o [RFC872] U, "TCP-on-a-LAN", which concludes that the fear of using TCP on a local network is unfounded
o [RFC872]U，“TCP-on-a-LAN”，其结论是担心在本地网络上使用TCP是没有根据的
o [RFC889] U, "Internet Delay Experiments", which describes experiments with the TCP retransmission timeout calculation
o [RFC889]U，“互联网延迟实验”，描述了TCP重传超时计算的实验
o [RFC964] U, "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol", which points out several specification bugs in the US Military's MIL-STD-1778 document, which was intended as a successor to [RFC793]
o [RFC964]U，“军用标准传输控制协议规范的一些问题”，其中指出了美军MIL-STD-1778文件中的几个规范错误，该文件旨在作为[RFC793]的后续文件
o [RFC1071] U, "Computing the Internet Checksum", which lists a number of implementation techniques for efficiently computing the Internet checksum
o [RFC1071]U，“计算互联网校验和”，其中列出了许多有效计算互联网校验和的实现技术
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。
[RFC675] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675, DOI 10.17487/RFC0675, December 1974, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc675>.
[RFC675]Cerf，V.，Dalal，Y.，和C.Sunshine，“互联网传输控制程序规范”，RFC 675，DOI 10.17487/RFC0675，1974年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc675>.
[RFC700] Mader, E., Plummer, W., and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol experiment", RFC 700, DOI 10.17487/RFC0700, August 1974, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc700>.
[RFC700]Mader，E.，Plummer，W.和R.Tomlinson，“协议实验”，RFC 700，DOI 10.17487/RFC0700，1974年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc700>.
[RFC721] Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host Protocol", RFC 721, DOI 10.17487/RFC0721, September 1976, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc721>.
[RFC721]Garlick，L.，“主机对主机协议中的带外控制信号”，RFC 721，DOI 10.17487/RFC07211976年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc721>.
[RFC761] Postel, J., "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 761, DOI 10.17487/RFC0761, January 1980, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc761>.
[RFC761]Postel，J.，“国防部标准传输控制协议”，RFC 761，DOI 10.17487/RFC0761，1980年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc761>.
[RFC794] Cerf, V., "Pre-emption", RFC 794, DOI 10.17487/RFC0794, September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc794>.
[RFC794]Cerf，V.，“先发制人”，RFC 794，DOI 10.17487/RFC0794，1981年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc794>.
[RFC813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP", RFC 813, DOI 10.17487/RFC0813, July 1982, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc813>.
[RFC813]Clark，D.，“TCP中的窗口和确认策略”，RFC 813，DOI 10.17487/RFC0813，1982年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc813>.
[RFC814] Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes", RFC 814, DOI 10.17487/RFC0814, July 1982, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc814>.
[RFC814]Clark，D.，“名称、地址、港口和路线”，RFC 814，DOI 10.17487/RFC0814，1982年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc814>.
[RFC816] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816, DOI 10.17487/RFC0816, July 1982, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc816>.
[RFC816]Clark，D.，“故障隔离和恢复”，RFC 816，DOI 10.17487/RFC0816，1982年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc816>.
[RFC817] Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol implementation", RFC 817, DOI 10.17487/RFC0817, July 1982, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc817>.
[RFC817]Clark，D.，“协议实现中的模块化和效率”，RFC 817，DOI 10.17487/RFC0817，1982年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc817>.
[RFC872] Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN", RFC 872, DOI 10.17487/RFC0872, September 1982, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc872>.
[RFC872]Padlipsky，M.，“TCP-on-a-LAN”，RFC 872，DOI 10.17487/RFC0872，1982年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc872>.
[RFC879] Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics", RFC 879, DOI 10.17487/RFC0879, November 1983, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc879>.
[RFC879]Postel，J.，“TCP最大段大小和相关主题”，RFC 879，DOI 10.17487/RFC0879，1983年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc879>.
[RFC889] Mills, D., "Internet Delay Experiments", RFC 889, DOI 10.17487/RFC0889, December 1983, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc889>.
[RFC889]Mills，D.，“互联网延迟实验”，RFC 889，DOI 10.17487/RFC0889，1983年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc889>.
[RFC896] Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks", RFC 896, DOI 10.17487/RFC0896, January 1984, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc896>.
[RFC896]Nagle，J.，“IP/TCP互联网中的拥塞控制”，RFC 896，DOI 10.17487/RFC0896，1984年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc896>.
[RFC964] Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 964, DOI 10.17487/RFC0964, November 1985, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc964>.
[RFC964]Sidhu，D.和T.Blumer，“军用标准传输控制协议规范的一些问题”，RFC 964，DOI 10.17487/RFC0964，1985年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc964>.
[RFC1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the Internet checksum", RFC 1071, DOI 10.17487/RFC1071, September 1988, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1071>.
[RFC1071]Braden，R.，Borman，D.，和C.Partridge，“计算互联网校验和”，RFC 1071，DOI 10.17487/RFC10711988年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1071>.
[RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", RFC 1078, DOI 10.17487/RFC1078, November 1988, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1078>.
[RFC1078]洛托，M.，“TCP端口服务多路复用器（TCPMUX）”，RFC 1078，DOI 10.17487/RFC1078，1988年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1078>.
[RFC6013] Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)", RFC 6013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6013, January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6013>.
[RFC6013]辛普森，W.“TCP Cookie事务（TCPCT）”，RFC 6013，DOI 10.17487/RFC6013，2011年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6013>.
[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC793]Postel，J.，“传输控制协议”，标准7，RFC 793，DOI 10.17487/RFC0793，1981年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1122]Braden，R.，Ed.“互联网主机的要求-通信层”，STD 3，RFC 1122，DOI 10.17487/RFC1122，1989年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，DOI 10.17487/RFC2026，1996年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461, DOI 10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461>.
[RFC5461]Gont，F.，“TCP对软错误的反应”，RFC 5461，DOI 10.17487/RFC5461，2009年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461>.
[RFC6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages", RFC 6633, DOI 10.17487/RFC6633, May 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6633>.
[RFC6633]Gont，F.，“ICMP源猝灭消息的弃用”，RFC 6633，DOI 10.17487/RFC6633，2012年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6633>.
[RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)", RFC 6691, DOI 10.17487/RFC6691, July 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6691>.
[RFC6691]Borman，D.，“TCP选项和最大段大小（MSS）”，RFC 6691，DOI 10.17487/RFC6691192012年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6691>.
[RFC7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413>.
[RFC7413]Cheng，Y.，Chu，J.，Radhakrishnan，S.，和A.Jain，“TCP快速开放”，RFC 7413，DOI 10.17487/RFC74132014年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413>.
[RFC7414] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A. Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 7414, DOI 10.17487/RFC7414, February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7414>.
[RFC7414]杜克，M.，布拉登，R.，艾迪，W.，布兰顿，E.，和A.齐默尔曼，“传输控制协议（TCP）规范文件路线图”，RFC 7414，DOI 10.17487/RFC7414，2015年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7414>.
[TCP-EDO] Touch, J. and W. Eddy, "TCP Extended Data Offset Option", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo-04, November 2015.
[TCP-EDO]Touch，J.和W.Eddy，“TCP扩展数据偏移选项”，正在进行的工作，草稿-ietf-tcpm-TCP-EDO-042015年11月。
Acknowledgments
致谢
The authors thank John Leslie, Pasi Sarolahti, Richard Scheffenegger, Martin Stiemerling, Joe Touch, Valdis Kletnieks, and Greg Skinner for their contributions.
作者感谢John Leslie、Pasi Sarolahti、Richard Scheffenegger、Martin Stiemering、Joe Touch、Valdis Kletnieks和Greg Skinner的贡献。
Lars Eggert has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program 2014-2018 under grant agreement No. 644866 (SSICLOPS). This document reflects only the authors' views, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Lars Eggert已收到欧盟地平线2020研究与创新计划2014-2018的资助，资助协议编号为644866（SSICLOPS）。本文件仅反映了作者的观点，欧盟委员会不对其所含信息的任何使用负责。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Alexander Zimmermann
亚历山大·齐默尔曼
Email: alexander@zimmermann.eu.com
Email: alexander@zimmermann.eu.com
Wesley M. Eddy MTI Systems Suite 170, 18013 Cleveland Parkway Cleveland, OH 44135 United States
美国俄亥俄州克利夫兰市克利夫兰公园路18013号韦斯利M.埃迪MTI系统170室，邮编：44135
Phone: +1-216-433-6682
Email: wes@mti-systems.com
Phone: +1-216-433-6682
Email: wes@mti-systems.com
Lars Eggert NetApp Sonnenallee 1 Kirchheim 85551 Germany
德国基尔希海姆1号拉尔斯·埃格特·内塔普·索内纳利85551
Phone: +49 151 12055791
Email: lars@netapp.com
Phone: +49 151 12055791
Email: lars@netapp.com