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

Hi, all,

I wouldn’t care if this doc used 114 - as long as it is very clear that 114 is for *ANY* 0-hop protocol, which means ANYONE else can also use it.

That means that it might be useful to treat that protocol a little like the experimental TCP codepoints as per RFC6994, i.e., to include a long (4-byte minimum) magic number and tolerate collisions.

Joe

> On Sep 20, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Erik Kline <ek@loon.com> wrote:
> 
> There's also the matter of whether allocating 114 for this doc would establish a precedent.
> 
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 20:24, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 21-Sep-19 14:11, Joe Touch wrote:
> > FWIW, there are many registries with such “dead” entries.
> 
> 114 is a bit special. By definition, all our normal traffic monitoring techniques will *never* see protocol 114 unless by chance they are installed on a layer 2 segment where it is in use. So even if no traces anywhere include it for ten years, we still can't assert that it is out of use. It seems harder to prove than most negatives :-).
> 
> > RFC6335 talks about the issue in trying to recover such entries.
> > 
> > In general, it recommends that even if they are recovered, at best they would be marked as “RESERVED” until other values have been assigned and the space requires reuse of those dead entries.
> > 
> > So the net effect is:
> > a) the list will never actually reflect what is deployed (as Bob notes below)
> > b) garbage-collecting will at best mark some subset as dead
> > c) but the available entries won’t be reused until we run out anyway
> > 
> > Given the number of remaining entries, the task of garbage collection seems of little value.
> 
> Until the day when it seems urgent...
> 
>     Brian
> 
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> >> On Sep 20, 2019, at 1:31 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >>> On Sep 20, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com <mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Behcet,
> >>>
> >>> That was a historical list. The current assignments are in https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml <https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml> . If you want to go garbage collecting, that's the place to start.
> >>
> >> It's difficult to tell which are no longer used.  For example, I was recently asked about the Reliable Data Protocol, it’s IANA assignment:
> >>
> >> 27   RDP     Reliable Data Protocol          [RFC908][Bob_Hinden]
> >>
> >> I assumed it was no longer used.   Later by happenstance, I learned it is specified by ETSI as mandatory to implement in eSIMs.  I had no idea.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >>
> >> _______
> >> internet-history mailing list
> >> internet-history@mailman.postel.org <mailto:internet-history@mailman.postel.org>
> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> >> Contact list-owner@mailman.postel.org <mailto:list-owner@mailman.postel.org> for assistance.
> > 
> > _______
> > internet-history mailing list
> > internet-history@mailman.postel.org <mailto:internet-history@mailman.postel.org>
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> > Contact list-owner@mailman.postel.org <mailto:list-owner@mailman.postel.org> for assistance.
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>