Re: [Int-area] [ih] Fwd: Existing use of IP protocol 114 (any 0-hop protocol)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you John for your 'archeology' work about this protocol number. I appreciate your time and effort.

About the draft itself, I will let the authors reply (as they should be part of int-area@) but my understanding is that the "multi-access gateway" is on the same link (3G or wifi) as the client so it is a layer-3 0-hop. And IMHO hop-limit should be 0 to scope the packets to the local-link (even if less secure than using HL=255).

Regards

-éric

On 20/09/2019, 02:02, "John Gilmore" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Protocol 114 was unassigned in RFC 1700 in Oct 1994, which was the last
    RFC tabulating protocol assignments.  In January 2002, RFCs ceased being
    published for protocol number assignments, according to RFC 3232.
    Sometime before Feb 1999, protocol 114 was assigned here:
    
      https://web.archive.org/web/19990203044112/http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/protocol-numbers
      
    The original IANA, Jon Postel, died on October 16, 1998.  There was some
    turmoil in the relevant websites at the time.  The Internet Archive's
    Wayback Machine does not appear to have captured the IANA.org or isi.edu
    websites during an earlier time when this protocol number was not
    assigned.  But, only five assignments in Feb 1999 had followed 114; the
    next one was L2TP (protocol 115) by Bernard Aboba (April 1998).  The
    preceding one was PGM (protocol 113) by Tony Speakman in January 1998.
    So it's a pretty good bet that it was assigned by Postel between January
    and April 1998.
    
    (L2TP was documented in RFC 2661 of August 1999, and by that point it was
    not using protocol #115; it ran over IP and UDP on port 1701.  A later
    2005 evolution of L2TP, L2TPv3, used protocol 115.)
    
    Does anyone have archives of the TCP-IP Distribution List from 1998?
    The only copy I have found so far is at
    http://securitydigest.org/tcp-ip/ but it ends in 1994 (with no apparent
    "we're closing down the list" messages).
    
    A separate issue:
    
    Having read the draft-zhu-intarea-gma-03.txt, and skimmed the 2017
    draft-kanugovi-intarea-mams-protocol-03 that it references, I don't see
    how this protocol could in any way be seen as a 0-hop protocol.  The
    whole design is to provide multiple paths to the Internet, which would
    require that the relevant packets traverse routers.  The MAMS draft
    explicitly says "MAMS routes user plane data packets at the IP layer".
    0-hop protocols only operate on a single LAN and cannot be routed, by
    definition.  (ARP, DHCP or its predecessor BOOTP are examples of 0-hop
    protocols.)
    
    Therefore, I think this draft should not be using protocol 114.
    
    	John