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

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 22:47:02 -0400

Bob,

I agree.  Let me add one other thing that has not come up in
this discussion.  Jon allocated some port numbers under NDAs
that obligated IANA to keep the purpose/description, and
sometimes the requester, private.  In some cases, those code
point assignments were kept private only for a while, e.g.,
until a planned protocol or product was mature enough to expose
to the community.   Others, well, I don't know. I don't know if
any of the code points with restrictions on disclosure were
allocated in the low-order range, but it is a plausible
explanation for code points that are shown as allocated but
without any real description.  

Taking back and reusing port numbers, addresses, or any other
parameter that was (as far as we know) properly allocated at the
time, and allocated without an expiration date, and doing so on
the basis of a newly-invented principle, is bad business and,
IMO, to be avoided if possible.

The right thing to do now is, as you suggest, almost certainly
nothing.   Sadly,  I also agree with your second reason even
though "new assignments... blocked by firewalls and middleboxes"
sounds to me like an admission that the Internet has evolved to
the point that we have abandoned one of the most important early
design principles, that of not requiring permission to introduce
new applications and other innovations.

 best,
    john

--On Monday, September 30, 2019 14:36 -0700 Bob Hinden
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Eric,
> 
>> On Sep 30, 2019, at 11:50 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
>> <[email-masked]> 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, 12:0䨳㸀㸀 ကഀ਀ഀ਀

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 20:00:51 -0700

+1

As I noted before, reclaiming values would require extensive verification that they are not in use, and would, *at best*, result in their being “reserved” until the pool of unassigned (but never used) values was nearly exhausted.

And, as I recently reminded others elsewhere, the IETF does NOT maintain a list of “currently active” anything. RFCs reflect their status when published; code points reflect their status when assigned.

The principle was first encoded into TCP - abandoned connection state sticks around until a new connection clears it out. We don’t “garbage collect” until we need new space.

Joe

> On Sep 30, 2019, at 7:47 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Bob,
>