rfc2780.txt

来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 564 行 · 第 1/2 页


RFC 2780                    IANA Assignments                  March 2000


   Action processes. The policy for assigning Code values for new IPv4
   ICMP Types should be defined in the document defining the new Type
   value.

7. IANA Considerations for fields in the IPv6 ICMP header

   The IPv6 ICMP header [ICMPV6] contains the following fields that
   carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type and Code.
   Code field values are defined relative to a specific Type value.

   Values for the IPv6 ICMP Type fields are allocated using an IESG
   Approval or Standards Action processes. Code Values for existing IPv6
   ICMP Type fields are allocated using IESG Approval or Standards
   Action processes. The policy for assigning Code values for new IPv6
   ICMP Types should be defined in the document defining the new Type
   value.

8. IANA Considerations for fields in the UDP header

   The UDP header [UDP] contains the following fields that carry values
   assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Source and Destination Port.

   Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace.
   Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification
   Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards
   Action process.  Note that some assignments may involve non-
   disclosure information.

9. IANA Considerations for fields in the TCP header

   The TCP header [TCP] contains the following fields that carry values
   assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Source and Destination Port,
   Reserved Bits, and Option Kind.

9.1 TCP Source and Destination Port fields

   Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace.
   Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification
   Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards
   Action process.  Note that some assignments may involve non-
   disclosure information.

9.2 Reserved Bits in TCP Header

   The reserved bits in the TCP header are assigned following a
   Standards Action process.





Bradner & Paxson         Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 2780                    IANA Assignments                  March 2000


9.3 TCP Option Kind field

   Values in the Option Kind field are assigned following an IESG
   Approval or Standards Action process.

10. Security Considerations

   Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection
   monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields
   described in this memo.  As new values for the fields are assigned,
   existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may
   fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer
   declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or loss of security if
   it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an
   attack.  This vulnerability argues for high visibility (which the
   Standards Action and IETF Consensus processes ensure) for the
   assignments whenever possible.

11. References

   [ADSCP]  Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 2365,
            July 1998.

   [AN80]   Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", RFC 758, August 1979.

   [AN81]   Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", RFC 790, September 1981.

   [CONS]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
            IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
            October 1998.

   [DIFF]   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.

   [ECN]    Ramakrishnan, K. and S. Floyd, "A Proposal to add Explicit
            Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 2481, January
            1999.

   [HC]     Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed
            serial links", RFC 1144, February 1990.

   [ICMP]   Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC
            792, September 1981.

   [ICMPV6] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol
            (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC
            2463, December 1998.



Bradner & Paxson         Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]

RFC 2780                    IANA Assignments                  March 2000


   [IPHC]   Degermark, M., Nordgren, S. and B. Pink, "IP Header
            Compression", RFC 2507, February 1999.

   [MASGN]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IPv6 Multicast Address
            Assignments", RFC 2375, July 1998.

   [MULT]   Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", RFC 988,
            July 1986.

   [NDV6]   Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery
            for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.

   [TCP]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
            September 1981.

   [UDP]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August
            1980.

   [V4]     Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September,
            1981.

   [V6]     Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
            (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [V6AA]   IAB, IESG, "IPv6 Address Allocation Management", RFC 1881,
            December 1995.

   [V6AD]   Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
            Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.






















Bradner & Paxson         Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]

RFC 2780                    IANA Assignments                  March 2000


12. Authors' Addresses

   Scott Bradner
   Harvard University
   Cambridge MA - USA
   02138

   Phone: [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]


   Vern Paxson
   ACIRI / ICSI
   1947 Center Street, Suite 600
   Berkeley, CA - USA
   94704-1198

   Phone: [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]
































Bradner & Paxson         Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]

RFC 2780                    IANA Assignments                  March 2000


13. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Bradner & Paxson         Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]