Brian, Joe, > On Sep 20, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > 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…
Yes to both. Especially since we are not close to running out. From the registry: 143-252 Unassigned [Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority] 109 available out of 256, or 42%. The last two assignments listed were in 2015. I think it would be fine for this draft to request a new one that accurately described its usage. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
