Those of us who have been doing this for a while sometimes forget that
there are things that are not obvious to those just joining us.
Protocol number assignments are at
http://www.iana.org/numbers.html. Application procedures are at
www.iana.org. IP Protocol numbers are at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers
To answer the first question - for proprietary protocols, don't apply for
your own number, use one of the already registered "any *"
protocols. E.g. 9 - IGP - Any private interior gateway protocol, 61 - any
host internal protocol. You should build sufficient robustness into your
protocol to ignore other private protocols of the same type - e.g. a magic
number in the payload, or Joe's recommendation of a private checksum algorithm.
Topic closed....
Mike
At 10:27 PM 3/4/2002 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
Vernon Schryver wrote:
To: marelines(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: nabe(_at_)iij(_dot_)ad(_dot_)jp
Subject: Re: Proprietary IP Protocol Type
From: Kuniaki Kondo <kuniaki(_at_)iij(_dot_)ad(_dot_)jp>
I am working on a distributed router and i want to run my own
proprietary protocol inside over
the IP layer. ...
I also have a same question.
I would like to get a document which is described assignment criteria,
current being used, etc...
If someone know, please advice me.
Please do not be offended, but if you do not already know the answers
to such questions or at least better places than the main IETF mailing
list to ask them, then it is practically certain that you would be
better served to use UDP/IP instead of raw IP.
>
The number of available IP protocol numbers is infinitesimal compared
to the number of UDP port numbers. (The host addresses can be seen
as qualifying port numbers, but protocol numbers are global.)
For prototyping, you don't need to worry about port or even protocol
number collisions. Use a checksum to ensure that you're interpretation of
incoming packets is correct, and ignore those whose checksums err. Unless
the protocol number is in common use, the overhead will be sufficiently low.
Joe