• 软件测试技术
  • 软件测试博客
  • 软件测试视频
  • 开源软件测试技术
  • 软件测试论坛
  • 软件测试沙龙
  • 软件测试资料下载
  • 软件测试杂志
  • 软件测试人才招聘
    暂时没有公告

字号: | 推荐给好友 上一篇 | 下一篇

RFC840 - Official protocols

发布: 2007-6-23 14:09 | 作者:   | 来源:   | 查看: 14次 | 进入软件测试论坛讨论

领测软件测试网

   
  Network Working Group J. Postel
Request for Comments: 840 ISI
April 1983

Official Protocols

This RFCidentifies the documents specifying the official protocols used

in the Internet. Annotations identify any revisions or changes planned.

To first order, the official protocols are those in the Internet
Protocol Transition Workbook (IPTW) dated March 1982. There are several
protocols in use that are not in the IPTW. A few of the protocols in
the IPTW have been revised these are noted here. In particular, the
mail protocols have been revised and issued as a volume titled "Internet
Mail Protocols" dated November 1982. There is a volume of protocol
related information called the Internet Protocol Implementers Guide
(IPIG) dated August 1982. A few of the protocols (in particular the
Telnet Options) have not been revised for many years, these are found in
the old ARPANET Protocol Handbook (APH) dated January 1978.

This document is organized as a sketchy outline. The entries are
protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol). In each entry there
are notes on status, specification, comments, other references,
dependencies, and contact.

The status is one of: required, recommended, elective, or
experimental.

The specification identifies the protocol defining documents.

The comments describe any differences from the specification or
problems with the protocol.

The other references identify documents that comment on or expand on
the protocol.

The dependencies indicate what other protocols are called upon by
this protocol.

The contact indicates a person who can answer questions about the
protocol.

Postel [Page 1]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

In particular, the status may need some further clarification:

required

- all hosts must implement the required protocol,

recommended

- all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended
protocol,

elective

- hosts may implement or not the elective protocol,

experimental

- hosts should not implement the experimental protocol unless
they are participating in the experiment and have coordinated
their use of this protocol with the contact person, and

none

- this is not a protocol.

Overview

Catenet Model

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: IEN 48 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

Gives an overview of the organization and principles of the
Internet.

Could be revised and expanded.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES:

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 2]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Network Level

Internet Protocol (IP)

STATUS: Required

SPECIFICATION: RFC791 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

A few minor problems have been noted in this document.

The most serious is a bit of confusion in the route options.
The route options have a pointer that indicates which octet of
the route is the next to be used. The confusion is between the
phrases "the pointer is relative to this option" and "the
smallest legal value for the pointer is 4". If you are
confused, forget about the relative part, the pointer begins
at 4.

Another important point is the alternate reassembly procedure
suggested in RFC815.

Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP. You
have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not
include ICMP.

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC815 (in IPIG) - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms

RFC814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes

RFC816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery

RFC817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
Implementation

DEPENDENCIES:

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 3]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)

STATUS: Required

SPECIFICATION: RFC792 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

A few minor errors in the document have been noted.
Suggestions have been made for additional types of redirect
message and additional destination unreachable messages.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Host Level

User Datagram Protocol (UDP)

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC768 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

The only change noted for the UDP specification is a minor
clarification that if in computing the checksum a padding octet
is used for the computation it is not transmitted or counted in
the length.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 4]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC793 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

Many comments and corrections have been received for the TCP
specification document. These are primarily document bugs
rather than protocol bugs.

Event Processing Section: There are many minor corrections and
clarifications needed in this section.

Push: There are still some phrases in the document that give a
"record mark" flavor to the push. These should be further
clarified. The push is not a record mark.

Listening Servers: Several comments have been received on
difficulties with contacting listening servers. There should
be some discussion of implementation issues for servers, and
some notes on alternative models of system and process
organization for servers.

Maximum Segment Size: The maximum segment size option should
be generalized and clarified. It can be used to either
increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default.
The default should be established more clearly. The default is
based on the default maximum Internet Datagram size which is
576 octets counting the IP and TCP headers. The option counts
only the segment data. For each of IP and TCP the minimum
header is 20 octets and the maximum header is 60 octets. So the
default maximum data segment is could be anywhere from 456 to
536 octets. The current proposal is to set it at 536 data
octets.

Idle Connections: There have been questions about
automatically closing idle connections. Idle connections are
ok, and should not be closed. There are several cases where
idle connections arise, for example, in Telnet when a user is
thinking for a long time following a message from the server
computer before his next input. There is no TCP "probe"
mechanism, and none is needed.

Queued Receive Data on Closing: There are several points where
it is not clear from the description what to do about data
received by the TCP but not yet passed to the user,
particularly when the connection is being closed. In general,

Postel [Page 5]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

the data is to be kept to give to the user if he does a RECV
call.

Out of Order Segments: The description says that segments that
arrive out of order, that is, are not exactly the next segment
to be processed, may be kept on hand. It should also point out
that there is a very large performance penalty for not doing
so.

User Time Out: This is the time out started on an open or send
call. If this user time out occurs the user should be
notified, but the connection should not be closed or the TCB
deleted. The user should explicitly ABORT the connection if he
wants to give up.

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC813 (in IPIG) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP

RFC814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes

RFC816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery

RFC817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
Implementation

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Host Monitoring Protocol (HMP)

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: IEN 197

COMMENTS:

This is a good tool for debuging protocol implementations in
small remotely located computers.

This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and the
TACs.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Hinden@BBN-UNIX

Postel [Page 6]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Cross Net Debugger (XNET)

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: IEN 158

COMMENTS:

This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC.

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC643

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP)

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC827

COMMENTS:

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 7]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Gateway Gateway Protocol (GGP)

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC823

COMMENTS:

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Brescia@BBN-UNIX

Multiplexing Protocol

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: IEN 90

COMMENTS:

No current experiment in progress. There is some question as
to the extent to which the sharing this protocol envisions can
actually take place. Also, there are some issues about the
information captured in the multiplexing header being (a)
insufficient, or (b) over specific.

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 8]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Stream Protocol (ST)

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: IEN 119

COMMENTS:

The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may no
longer be consistent with this specification. The document
should be updated and issued as an RFC.

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Forgie@BBN

Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II)

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFCxxx

COMMENTS:

The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should be
updated and issued as an RFC.

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol

CONTACT: Casner@USC-ISIB

Postel [Page 9]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Application Level

Telnet Protocol (TELNET)

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC764 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

A few minor typographical errors should be corrected and some
clarification of the SYNCH mechanism should be made.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Telnet Options (TELNET)

Number Name RFCNIC APH USE
------ ------------------------------------ --- ----- --- ---
0 Binary Transmission ... 15389 yes yes
1 Echo ... 15390 yes yes
2 Reconnection ... 15391 yes no
3 Suppress Go Ahead ... 15392 yes yes
4 Approximate Message Size Negotiation ... 15393 yes no
5 Status 651 31154 yes yes
6 Timing Mark ... 16238 yes yes
7 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 726 39237 yes no
8 Output Line Width ... 20196 yes no
9 Output Page Size ... 20197 yes no
10 Output Carriage-Return Disposition 652 31155 yes no
11 Output Horizontal Tabstops 653 31156 yes no
12 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 654 31157 yes no
13 Output Formfeed Disposition 655 31158 yes no
14 Output Vertical Tabstops 656 31159 yes no
15 Output Vertical Tab Disposition 657 31160 yes no
16 Output Linefeed Disposition 658 31161 yes no
17 Extended ASCII 698 32964 yes no
18 Logout 727 40025 yes no
19 Byte Macro 735 42083 yes no
20 Data Entry Terminal 732 41762 yes no
21 SUPDUP 734 736 42213 yes no
22 SUPDUP Output 749 45449 no no
23 Send Location 779 ----- no no
255 Extended-Options-List ... 16239 yes yes

Postel [Page 10]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: (in APH)

COMMENTS:

There is an open question about some of these. Most of the
options are implemented by so few hosts that perhaps they
should be eliminated. These should all be studied and the
useful ones reissued as RFCs.

The last column (USE) of the table above indicates which
options are in general use.

The following are recommended: Binary Transmission, Echo,
Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options
List.

Many of these must be revised for use with TCP.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Telnet

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

File Transfer Protocol (FTP)

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC765 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

There are a number of minor corrections to be made. A major
change is the deletion of the mail commands, and a major
clarification is needed in the discussion of the management of
the data connection. Also, a suggestion has been made to
include some directory manipulation commands (RFC775).

Eventhough the MAIL features are defined in this document, they
are not to be used. The SMTP protocol is to be used for all
mail service in the Internet.

Data Connection Management:

a. Default Data Connection Ports: All FTP implementations
must support use of the default data connection ports, and
only the User-PI may initiate the use of non-default ports.

Postel [Page 11]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

b. Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports: The User-PI may
specify a non-default user side data port with the PORT
command. The User-PI may request the server side to
identify a non-default server side data port with the PASV
command. Since a connection is defined by the pair of
addresses, either of these actions is enough to get a
different data connection, still it is permitted to do both
commands to use new ports on both ends of the data
connection.

c. Reuse of the Data Connection: When using the stream
mode of data transfer the end of the file must be indicated
by closing the connection. This causes a problem if
multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due to
need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time out
period to guarantee the reliable communication. Thus the
connection can not be reopened at once.

There are two solutions to this problem. The first is to
negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above). The
second is to use another transfer mode.

A comment on transfer modes. The stream transfer mode is
inherently unreliable, since one can not determine if the
connection closed prematurely or not. The other transfer
modes (Block, Compressed) do not close the connection to
indicate the end of file. They have enough FTP encoding
that the data connection can be parsed to determine the
end of the file. Thus using these modes one can leave
the data connection open for multiple file transfers.

Why this was not a problem with the old NCP FTP:

The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind.
The ARPANET provides very reliable service, and the
NCP counted on it. If any packet of data from an NCP
connection were lost or damaged by the network the NCP
could not recover. It is a tribute to the ARPANET
designers that the NCP FTP worked so well.

The TCP is designed to provide reliable connections
over many different types of networks and
interconnections of networks. TCP must cope with a
set of networks that can not promise to work as well
as the ARPANET. TCP must make its own provisions for
end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets.
This leads to the need for the connection phase-down
time-out. The NCP never had to deal with
acknowledgements or retransmissions or many other

Postel [Page 12]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

things the TCP must do to make connection reliable in
a more complex world.

LIST and NLST:

There is some confusion about the LIST an NLST commands, and
what is appropriate to return. Some clarification and
motivation for these commands should be added to the
specification.

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC678 - Document File Format Standards

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP)

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC783 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

No known problems with this specification. This is in use in
several local networks.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC821

COMMENTS:

This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC788 (in IPTW) is
obsolete.

There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early

Postel [Page 13]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

implementations. Some documentation of these problems can be
found in the file [ISIF]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS.

Some minor differences between RFC821 and RFC822 should be
resolved.

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC822 - Mail Header Format Standards

This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC733 (in IPTW)
is obsolete. Further revision of RFC822 is needed to
correct some minor errors in the details of the
specification.

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Remote Job Entry (RJE)

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC407 (in APH)

COMMENTS:

Some changes needed for use with TCP.

No known active implementations.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol
Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 14]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Remote Job Service (NETRJS)

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC740 (in APH)

COMMENTS:

Used with the UCLA IBM OS system.

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

Revision in progress.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Braden@USC-ISIA

Remote Telnet Service

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC818

COMMENTS:

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Graphics Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: NIC 24308 (in APH)

COMMENTS:

Very minor changes needed for use with TCP.

No known active implementations.

OTHER REFERENCES:

Postel [Page 15]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Echo Protocol

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC347

COMMENTS:

This specification should be revised for use with TCP and
reissued.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
or User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Discard Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC348

COMMENTS:

This specification should be revised for use with TCP and
reissued.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
or User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 16]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Character Generator Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC429

COMMENTS:

This specification should be revised for use with TCP and
reissued.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
or User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Quote of the Day Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFCxxx

COMMENTS:

Open a connection to this server, it sends you a quote (as a
character string), and closes the connection. This should be
described in an RFC.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
or User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Active Users Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFCxxx

COMMENTS:

Open a connection to this server, it sends you a list of the
currently logged in users (as a character string), and closes
the connection. This should be described in an RFC.

Postel [Page 17]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
or User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Finger Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC742 (in APH)

COMMENTS:

Some extensions have been suggested.

Some changes are are needed for TCP.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

NICNAME Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC812 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

Accesses the ARPANET Directory database.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC

Postel [Page 18]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

HOSTNAME Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC811 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC810 - Host Table Specification

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC

Host Name Server Protocol

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: IEN 116 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

This specification has significant problems: 1) The name
syntax is out of date. 2) The protocol details are ambiguous,
in particular, the length octet either does or doesn't include
itself and the op code. 3) The extensions are not supported by
any known implementation.

Work is in progress on a significant revision. Further
implementations of this protocol are not advised.

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 19]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: CS-DN-2

COMMENTS:

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Solomon@UWISC

Daytime Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFCxxx

COMMENTS:

Open a connection to this server, it sends you the date and
time (as a character string), and closes the connection. This
should be described in an RFC.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
or User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Time Server Protocol

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: IEN 142

COMMENTS:

Open a connection to this server, it sends you the date and
time (as a 32-bit number), and closes the connection. Or send
a user datagram and it send back a datagram containing the date
and time (as a 32-bit number).

Postel [Page 20]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

No known problems. Specification should be reissued as an RFC.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
or User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

DCNET Time Server Protocol (Internet Clock Service)

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC778

COMMENTS:

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol

CONTACT: Mills@LINKABIT-DCN6

SUPDUP Protocol

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC734 (in APH)

COMMENTS:

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Admin.MRC@SU-SCORE

Internet Message Protocol (MPM)

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC753

COMMENTS:

This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol. The
implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM.

Postel [Page 21]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
protocol with the contact.

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC767 - Structured Document Formats

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Appendices

Assigned Numbers

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: RFC820

COMMENTS:

Describes the fields of various protocols that are assigned
specific values for actual use, and lists the currently
assigned values.

Issued January 1983, replaces RFC790 in IPTW.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Pre-emption

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC794 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 22]

RFC840 April 1983
Official Protocols

Service Mappings

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: RFC795 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

Describes the mapping of the IP type of service field onto the
parameters of some specific networks.

Out of date, needs revision.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Address Mappings

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: RFC796 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

Describes the mapping of the IP address field onto the address
field of some specific networks.

Out of date, needs revision.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

文章来源于领测软件测试网 https://www.ltesting.net/


关于领测软件测试网 | 领测软件测试网合作伙伴 | 广告服务 | 投稿指南 | 联系我们 | 网站地图 | 友情链接
版权所有(C) 2003-2010 TestAge(领测软件测试网)|领测国际科技(北京)有限公司|软件测试工程师培训网 All Rights Reserved
北京市海淀区中关村南大街9号北京理工科技大厦1402室 京ICP备10010545号-5
技术支持和业务联系:info@testage.com.cn 电话:010-51297073

软件测试 | 领测国际ISTQBISTQB官网TMMiTMMi认证国际软件测试工程师认证领测软件测试网