The decision to allocate one port was discussed in the MANET group. We chose to reserve a single port to allow multiple protocols to be used together. For example, it is extremely likely that NHDP will be used with both DYMO and OLSRv2. Before you voiced your suggestion to allocate an IP protocol number, the issue has never arisen. Unless there is WG support to allocate an IP protocol number, I do not think it will be allocated. Regarding packetbb IANA considerations and other MANET WG protocols additional IANA needs they are addressed in their documents. For example, see packetbb's IANA section. Ian On 8/9/07, Bo Berry <bberry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Given that the WG is working to define two standards > - Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP) > - Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP) > that may or may not converge, do we need to allocate > two port numbers so these protocols can co-exist? > > There has also been a suggestion to allocate an IP protocol > number for a MANET routing protocol. Should this be > included in this draft? > > The various MANET protocols are moving to packetbb which > will require the definition of several/many TLV identifiers. > Where are these type IDs going to be allocated and tracked? > If in the separate protocol drafts, is there a potential > problem with overlap if IDs? If so, perhaps the MANET > type IDs should be defined here. > > draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-08 currently reserves IDs > "Message type 0 MUST NOT be allocated because a zero-octet signifies a > packet header and zero-octets are used for padding. Message types 1 > to 4 are reserved because they are used by OLSR [4], which uses a > compatible packet/message header format." > > > > Thanks > -Bo > > > > The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG > > (manet) to consider the following document: > > > > - 'Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Allocations for the > > Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group ' > > <draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2007-08-18. Exceptionally, > > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please > > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > The file can be obtained via > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15731&rfc_flag=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf