[171586] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US patent 5473599
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Tue May 6 18:20:01 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPKkNb4ztF38CK5mK1ZM6t_ww26fC6kD+VLROyuH=_FyvEiQTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 18:17:58 -0400
To: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_7FE73372-18F1-447D-984F-133D6263596E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Constantine,
On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998.
>>=20
>> When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112?
>=20
> If you don't use it, you lose it.
Are you suggesting no one is running VRRP? Surprising given RFC 5798.
By the way, according to Wikipedia, it would seem the OpenBSD developers =
decided to squat on 112 in 2003, 5 years after 112 was assigned.
> There are only so many protocol numbers; out of those potentially
> available and non-conflicting,
Yes. That is exactly why most responsible and professional developers =
work with IANA to obtain the assignments they need instead of =
intentionally squatting on numbers, particularly numbers known to be =
already assigned.
> it was deemed the best choice to go
> with the protocol number that was guaranteed to be useless otherwise.
Except it wasn't useless: it was, in fact, in use by VRRP. Further, the =
OpenBSD developers chose to squat on 240 for pfsync - a number that has =
not yet been allocated. If the OpenBSD developers were so concerned =
about making the best choice, it seems odd they chose an allocated =
number for one protocol and an unallocated number for another protocol.
To be honest, it would seem from appearances that OpenBSD's use of 112 =
was deemed a "cute" (that is, unprofessional and irresponsible) way for =
the OpenBSD developers to say 'screw you' to the IETF, IANA, Cisco, =
network operators, etc. The fact that OpenBSD developers continue to =
defend this choice is one reason why I won't run OpenBSD (or CARP).
> Any complaints for Google using the https port 443 for SPDY?
AFAIK, the use of SPDY does not preclude the use of HTTPS on the same =
network. The fact that in addition to the OpenBSD developers choosing to =
use 112, they also chose to use the MAC addresses used for VRRP, thus =
making it impossible to run both VRRP and CARP on the same network due =
to MAC address conflicts would suggest you might want to pick a better =
analogy.
Regards,
-drc
--Apple-Mail=_7FE73372-18F1-447D-984F-133D6263596E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTaV+XAAoJENV6ebf0/4rXOsAIAM029zCoMHr/VRiuQ1vlOG41
tJEOffL3R5eQeEOSARCnEHca3zjuJKz2T3QOf1FCXjn49F7k4bjYAgDH/j73soLN
y6OIEMN86JrLZsQTNnc05A0UfhDVpdvdynl9kqZMZgKHj0J9CnQtR1Dl0lPk2y9U
MJGt8aiNXVxeqoKdDYt59VhB869ADQywUGVK+cU8oadri8hOP+WuH6sauEhZSNXH
QgmBnFqIiUo5QMJO5zXY+i+dL55t7AjwSy5SVuatSIw0VN5ksVRCMDRPnm/tmZzQ
HLKJDoD0hbjyEjSSms3Z3cFjnhql1u3b9qPq6tw3CBLPK5i1Kuaa6KXCHOR28R8=
=rzwV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_7FE73372-18F1-447D-984F-133D6263596E--
