[158546] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: carping about CARP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Farrel)
Sun Dec 2 17:29:19 2012
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Owen DeLong'" <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <04A3A2DE-708C-4F52-B4C3-86BE2A628278@delong.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 22:28:56 -0000
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Far be it from me to get involved in a private pissing match, but...
Owen wrote:
> Perhaps we should ask IETF/IANA to allocate a group of protocol numbers
> to "the wild west". A protocol-number equivalent of RFC-1918 or private ASNs.
> You can use these for whatever you want, but so can anyone else and if you
> do, you do so at your own risk.
>
> This won't entirely solve the problem, but at least it would provide some
> level of shield for protocol numbers that are registered to particular
> purposes through the IETF/IANA process.
Would that be 253 and 254 "Use for experimentation and testing" per RFC 3692?
Of course, no-one like to see their pet protocol designated as an experiment
(unless they really believe it is something that should be carefully researched
and tried out in a controlled environment), but the garden-walling that you
describe seems to fit exactly within the 3692 definitions.
Adrian
