[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
carping about CARP
- Subject: carping about CARP
- From: asullivan at dyn.com (Andrew Sullivan)
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:19:21 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CABE=bRNKiDHRd2UVQSGu8NS3yJr00pCZGjr74KUi_Yj7KVqs5g@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CABE=bROcd+mC-m=QH_GF1UwjpOEoWuMiYmnFs7Q0uKgcN=fhVA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CABE=bRNKiDHRd2UVQSGu8NS3yJr00pCZGjr74KUi_Yj7KVqs5g@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 02:05:14AM +1030, David Walker wrote:
> As far as not using the same protocol number, that's neither here nor there.
Horse pucky. On the Internet, the secure and reliable players
co-ordinate their protocol actions through the IANA, using the
published IANA rules for how you get a protocol identifier. This case
is a straightforward example of a bunch of people angry at things not
going their way, and treading all over a well-defined, open process
becuse they didn't like the actions of some of the participants.
I don't like those actions either, but if proponents cannot bother to
publish an Internet-Draft describing CARP, it's pretty hard to take
CARP seriously as anything like a "protocol". It's just rude
behaviour on someone else's well-defined port.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Dyn Labs
asullivan at dyn.com