US patent 5473599
drc at virtualized.org
Tue May 6 19:31:38 UTC 2014
On May 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body regulating "official" internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers for CARP and pfsync our request was denied. Apparently we had failed to go through an official standards organization.
Yes. The 8-bit IP protocol field is assigned by IANA according to "IESG Approval 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?
>>>>> 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 those values, they are assigned by IESG or via a standards action." Indeed, IP protocol 240 is not yet allocated. Presumably the OpenBSD community expects everyone else to acknowledge the squatting on 240.
> Frankly, I don't really see what the huge loss is.
> 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 childishly squatting on a protocol number and OpenBSD developers hacking apart OpenSSL is what exactly?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the NANOG