US patent 5473599

Constantine A. Murenin mureninc at gmail.com
Tue May 6 20:15:45 UTC 2014


On 6 May 2014 12:31, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> Constantine,
>
> 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?

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 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.
>
> 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 childishly 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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list