Network Working Group P. Savola
Request for Comments: 4223 CSC/FUNET
Obsoletes: 1863 October 2005
Category: Informational
Network Working Group P. Savola
Request for Comments: 4223 CSC/FUNET
Obsoletes: 1863 October 2005
Category: Informational
Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
将RFC 1863重新分类为历史
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。
Abstract
摘要
This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing, to Historic status. This memo also obsoletes RFC 1863.
本备忘录将RFC 1863重新分类为历史状态，RFC 1863是BGP/IDRP路由服务器，可替代全网状路由。本备忘录还废除了RFC 1863。
RFC 1863 [1] describes the use of route servers as an alternative to BGP/IDRP full mesh routing.
RFC 1863[1]描述了使用路由服务器作为BGP/IDRP全网状路由的替代方案。
In the context of this document, the term "RFC 1863 route server" is used to refer to a route server as specified in RFC 1863. Other uses of the term "route server" are outside the scope of this document.
在本文件的上下文中，术语“RFC 1863路由服务器”用于指RFC 1863中指定的路由服务器。术语“路由服务器”的其他用途不在本文档范围内。
Implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist and are not used as an alternative to full mesh routing. Therefore, RFC 1863 is reclassified to Historic status.
RFC1863路由服务器的实现不存在，也没有用作全网状路由的替代方案。因此，RFC1863被重新归类为历史地位。
Current techniques that serve as an alternative to full mesh routing include BGP Route Reflectors [2], BGP Confederedations [3], and the use of private AS numbers. IDRP for IP has never been standardized by the IETF and can be considered obsolete.
作为全网状路由的替代方案的当前技术包括BGP路由反射器[2]、BGP确认[3]和使用专用as号码。IP的IDRP从未被IETF标准化，可以认为已经过时。
Other uses of (non-RFC1863) route servers, rather than as an alternative to full mesh routing as described by RFC 1863, are expected to continue to be used for multiple purposes, but are out of the scope of this memo.
（非RFC1863）路由服务器的其他用途，而不是作为RFC 1863所述的全网状路由的替代，预计将继续用于多种用途，但不在本备忘录的范围内。
Jeffrey Haas, John Scudder, Paul Jakma, and Yakov Rekhter provided useful background information for the creation of this memo. Scott Bradner, Jeffrey Haas, and Yakov Rekhter provided substantial feedback during the WG last call.
Jeffrey Haas、John Scudder、Paul Jakma和Yakov Rekhter为创建本备忘录提供了有用的背景信息。斯科特·布拉德纳（Scott Bradner）、杰弗里·哈斯（Jeffrey Haas）和雅科夫·雷克特（Yakov Rekhter）在工作组上次通话中提供了大量反馈。
Reclassifying RFC 1863 has no security considerations.
重新分类RFC1863没有安全考虑。
[1] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.
[1] Haskin，D.，“全网状路由的BGP/IDRP路由服务器替代方案”，RFC 1863，1995年10月。
[2] Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000.
[2] Bates，T.，Chandra，R.，和E.Chen，“BGP路线反射-全网格IBGP的替代方案”，RFC 2796，2000年4月。
[3] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.
[3] Traina，P.，McPherson，D.，和J.Scudder，“BGP自治系统联合会”，RFC 3065，2001年2月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Pekka Savola CSC/FUNET Espoo Finland
佩卡·萨沃拉CSC/芬兰福内·埃斯波
EMail: psavola@funet.fi
EMail: psavola@funet.fi
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。