Constantine, On May 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Constantine A. Murenin <muren...@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. 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? Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
