Re: [Int-area] IP Protocol number allocation request for Transparent Inter Process Communication (TIPC) protocol

Joseph Touch <> Thu, 19 March 2020 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CE33A123E for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 16:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DfvHoVNIPgnU for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 16:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 419A53A122C for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 16:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Y86bkMoJKndkgXwLAGZn94b1g0tyhHmXYDIV9TF6KBY=; b=RNfpiPDdrL+Mph1zJpZOfbPX0 +im+b0kU2SESlHoPexmE4kHnaWff6R2uWqBA4lpcUHWi8SlNeLa07MiLUHrwK+njgqFgOnf8Nkbvv ijHqtdUIzB4OT1nQ4Rv8gR4sgzVz/g4RdcrJOE9Kv2VxiQYyCJoZCqz1daLBp0eFVw8VvCoAtMSqx SAHPy4MseA+/9L1kJ/pDcG+hSNyDx6LtYEJJ2Y58IZ4TkyiZ0fa6sZCWUdTINL7jJR525dhnPn+Di 6RDAFzXOha+/jlJL/SDMOWnh5jvaGiUgcqUKNc7TOWtMVQCTfeRS6T9eDZ+oUK6XQ1coYwp2yqhtA XypGR42EA==;
Received: from ([]:52185 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jF4dp-000294-Dr; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:32:01 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EBDFDD29-3353-4395-83EA-8789EE8C050B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 16:31:50 -0700
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <>, int-area <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Jon Maloy <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Protocol number allocation request for Transparent Inter Process Communication (TIPC) protocol
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 23:32:05 -0000

> On Mar 19, 2020, at 3:11 PM, Jon Maloy <> wrote:
> On 3/18/20 12:04 AM, Joseph Touch wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I’m quite confused by this request.
>> It seems like they either have an implementation issue (in Linux). 
> Linux "passthru" GSO is implemented so that any IP based protocol which wants to benefit 
> from it needs its own IP protocol number. Doing this generically through the already existing 
> UDP protocol number is not possible, because GSO on a host must be implemented 
> specifically (e.g., regarding segmentation) per carried protocol. That is just a fact, and not 
> an implementation issue.  

How is that not exactly an implementation issue?

> IP addresses are no good in the *user API*, because they are location bound. 
> That is also why DNS was invented, I  believe. 

DNS names are intended to be a human-rememberable alias to an IP address. They do not indicate a location any more than an IP address does or does not.

> Whatever the viewpoints, TIPC is currently what it is,

As is IP...

> and rather than focusing on the motivation
> for certain implementation choices and how they work, I think IETF should consider the fact
> that this is a well-established service used by dozens of small and big companies, running high-volume
> traffic at hundreds of telco sites around the globe. They should also consider that TIPC has 
> existed as a stable and well-maintained implementation in all major Linux distros for many years.

I won’t focus on the bad decisions in TIPC if you won’t ask for a protocol number -deal?