[171583] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US patent 5473599
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Constantine A. Murenin)
Tue May 6 16:15:54 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5AFC5024-1BAB-4A55-AD31-CBB1C333301A@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:15:45 -0700
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 6 May 2014 12:31, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> Constantine,
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>>> As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body re=
gulating "official" internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers for CARP =
and pfsync our request was denied. Apparently we had failed to go through a=
n official standards organization.
>
> Yes. The 8-bit IP protocol field is assigned by IANA according to "IESG A=
pproval or Standards Action".
>
>>>>>> Consequently we were forced to choose a protocol number which would=
not conflict with anything else of value, and decided to place CARP at IP =
protocol 112.
>
> Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998.
>
> When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112?
If you don't use it, you lose it.
>
>>>>>> We also placed pfsync at an open and unused number. We informed IANA=
of these decisions, but they declined to reply.
>
> I would imagine the reply was "IANA does not have discretion to assign th=
ose values, they are assigned by IESG or via a standards action." Indeed, I=
P protocol 240 is not yet allocated. Presumably the OpenBSD community expec=
ts everyone else to acknowledge the squatting on 240.
>
>> Frankly, I don't really see what the huge loss is.
>
> Not surprising.
>
>> Perhaps people
>> should realise that OpenBSD has recently removed The Heartbeat
>> Extension from TLS in libssl, and boycott the upcoming LibreSSL, since
>> its likelihood of having another heartbleed has been so reduced, yet
>> the API is still compatible with OpenSSL. ???
>
>
> Sorry, the relationship between OpenBSD developers intentionally and chil=
dishly squatting on a protocol number and OpenBSD developers hacking apart =
OpenSSL is what exactly?
This all has been discussed ad nauseam over the years, in every
possible forum, many times over again.
There are only so many protocol numbers; out of those potentially
available and non-conflicting, it was deemed the best choice to go
with the protocol number that was guaranteed to be useless otherwise.
Any complaints for Google using the https port 443 for SPDY?
C.
