Eric, > On Sep 30, 2019, at 11:50 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Masataka, Joe and Bob, > > I think we agree even if my wording was ambiguous: the community should define 'what to do' with those 'any *' IP protocols that are not specified anywhere. And the definition could be "do not use" but follow the process to get a new IP protocol with some 'fences' to avoid wasting the remaining 42% of those IP protocol numbers. > > => the current 'ambiguous' situation does not seem too good to me My take is doing anything isn’t necessary. Two reasons: 1) We aren’t close to running out. The registry shows: 143-252 Unassigned That a lot of room in the registry given the current assignment rate. 2) The second reason is that I think the reason for few IANA allocation requests in this registry is that it is likely that packets containing any new assignments will be blocked in firewalls and middle boxes. It’s hard to get a new protocol deployed. I am doubtful this will change anytime soon. I suspect we will never run out, unless the Internet changes significantly. The most I can see doing is to ask IANA to let the IETF community know when we have reached some milestone, like 90% of the space has been assigned. Thanks, Bob > > -éric > > On 30/09/2019, 12:04, "ietf on behalf of Masataka Ohta" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Joe Touch wrote: > >>> Now, it would nice to have a volunteer to write a document to >>> finally document those “Any bla” protocol number by putting common >>> sense restrictions/constraints on them (protocols 9/IGP, 61/host >>> internal, 63/local network, 68/distributed FS, 99/private >>> encryption scheme, 114/0-hop). >> >> For the same reasons Bob mentions, I think this isn’t needed. >> >> We don’t need to encourage playing with these code points for >> experiments; better a protocol designer go through the >> standards-track process, at which point they can either use one of >> these codepoints or get a new one. > > I don't think we need a document either, but, to clarify who > choose the actual protocol (not IESG, nor protocol developers), > the following footnote in the IANA page may be helpful: > > The actual protocol used with the number is determined > at the discretion of local administrator as long as > the protocol is locally unique. > > Though it may make wireshark developers unhappy, it was the > intention of IANA. > > Masataka Ohta > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
