Behcet, That was a historical list. The current assignments are in https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml . If you want to go garbage collecting, that's the place to start.
Cheers, Andy On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:25 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 7:02 PM John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Protocol 114 was unassigned in RFC 1700 in Oct 1994, which was the last >> RFC tabulating protocol assignments. In January 2002, RFCs ceased being >> published for protocol number assignments, according to RFC 3232. >> Sometime before Feb 1999, protocol 114 was assigned here: >> >> >> https://web.archive.org/web/19990203044112/http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/protocol-numbers >> <https://web.archive.org/web/19990203044112/http://www.isi..edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/protocol-numbers> >> >> > > I looked at this document. > It looks like many listed there are no longer used/exist. > Maybe deprecating them and thereby making the numbers available for > assignment seem like something IETF/IESG can do? > > Behcet > >> The original IANA, Jon Postel, died on October 16, 1998. There was some >> turmoil in the relevant websites at the time. The Internet Archive's >> Wayback Machine does not appear to have captured the IANA.org or isi.edu >> websites during an earlier time when this protocol number was not >> assigned. But, only five assignments in Feb 1999 had followed 114; the >> next one was L2TP (protocol 115) by Bernard Aboba (April 1998). The >> preceding one was PGM (protocol 113) by Tony Speakman in January 1998. >> So it's a pretty good bet that it was assigned by Postel between January >> and April 1998. >> >> (L2TP was documented in RFC 2661 of August 1999, and by that point it was >> not using protocol #115; it ran over IP and UDP on port 1701. A later >> 2005 evolution of L2TP, L2TPv3, used protocol 115.) >> >> Does anyone have archives of the TCP-IP Distribution List from 1998? >> The only copy I have found so far is at >> http://securitydigest.org/tcp-ip/ but it ends in 1994 (with no apparent >> "we're closing down the list" messages). >> >> A separate issue: >> >> Having read the draft-zhu-intarea-gma-03.txt, and skimmed the 2017 >> draft-kanugovi-intarea-mams-protocol-03 that it references, I don't see >> how this protocol could in any way be seen as a 0-hop protocol. The >> whole design is to provide multiple paths to the Internet, which would >> require that the relevant packets traverse routers. The MAMS draft >> explicitly says "MAMS routes user plane data packets at the IP layer". >> 0-hop protocols only operate on a single LAN and cannot be routed, by >> definition. (ARP, DHCP or its predecessor BOOTP are examples of 0-hop >> protocols.) >> >> Therefore, I think this draft should not be using protocol 114. >> >> John >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
