Subject: Re: Changing the PHY status reporting
To: None <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/19/2006 19:06:34
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 07:13:10PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:44:54PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> > It has nothing to do with a political statement. OpenBSD would use its own
> > protocol number if IANA was willing to allocate a number for the protocol.
> Yeah, right, hijacking someone else's protocol number is just a peachy
> keen thing to do. Shame a number of the people behind it made very, very
> public statements that contradict the party line you give above.
> If any code that hijacks IANA-allocated protocol numbers is committed to
> our tree, I will personally back it out unless told not to do so by core.
OK, what do you want to do instead?
We have three options:
(1) Leave out CARP. Screw all those who want to use and/or need to use
(2) Use the same protocol number and just ignore IANA. As long as you
don't have some weired configuration, both stacks should be able to drop
the packets they are not interested in.
(3) Use a different protocol number. This screws up interoperability
with other CARP implementations. Not that a big deal, but should be
mentioned. Doesn't answer the question which protocol number should be
used instead. Any suggestions?
For me, (1) is not an option since it shows an inacceptable attitude. I
have no problem with (3), maybe even making it options-al to choose