On 6 May 2014 12:31, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > 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?
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.
