Subject: Re: [IPsec] IANA port number assignment name for IKEv2

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 01:54:46 +0200 (MESZ)

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:15:22 -0400, Micah Anderson wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:00:49 -0400, Dan McDonald wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Here are the entries in Solaris's /etc/services, e.g.:
>>
>> ike             500/udp         ike             # Internet Key Exchange
>> ipsec-nat-t     4500/udp                        # IPsec NAT-Traversal
>
> Great, Solaris has updated them, but its not updated in IANA's port
> assignment database.
>
>> Why is this a big deal?  Are you just wanting to make sure IANA
>> reflects reality?
>
> Yes, I think having IANA reflect reality is a good idea.

+1

The above entries look reasonable, and preferable to me as well.

Procedural background:

There's an effort ongoing at IANA and directed by TSVWG for
a major revision of the Port Numbers registry to become the
"Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Numbers" registry --
see  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports/ .

The precise term for the subject we are talking about here is
(registered) "service name" (for ports 500 and 4500, respectively).

The revised policy for that registry reinforces to strongly discourages
the handing out the assignment of different port numbers for different
versions of an application/service in favor of recommending that
application designers use wire formats that allow to demultiplex and/or
negotiated different versions of the service.  That's what we have.
So sticking with the previously assigned port numbers conforms to the
present and the upcoming registry policy as well.

Further, the registry allows -- for scenarios essentially limited to
very few important legacy cases -- the assignment of multiple service
names for the same service, by introducing 'alias' service names.
One of these names SHOULD be designated as the primary one.  This will
be implemented for the known legacy cases during the conversion of the
registry, i.e. the implementation of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports.
That I-D is approaching WGLC in TSVWG, and Magnus Westerlund has
asked for more cases where alias service names are needed and for
the designated primary service name in these cases.
It looks like we have one such case here.

Is it o.k. for the WG to include the above new service names in the
registry and turning the presently registered service names into
secondary names (aliases) ?

I'm in the process of supplying another round of comments, and if the
WG concurs, I could include that request in comments to the draft,
pointing to this thread for reference, and supplying the necessary
registration templates according to the above draft.

Alternatively, I suggest that the authors of RFC 5996 or the
chairs supply these templates to the aformentioned I-D's authors
for documentation in the draft and inclusion in the registry
conversion process.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+