Talk:List of IP protocol numbers

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Networking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

HEX numbers

I've added the HEX numbers so that it is easier for programmers to look up their protocols. The List is far away from any main path, so it should not bother the normal surfer. If you have any suggestions, please write it here. And please do not delete the HEX values. Musterstudent (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occurence

What does the occurrence have to do with anything? SurDin (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Occurrence section was removed by another editor. For those wondering what that was about see this revision of the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article is weird

...Why is the name of this article esentially 'Internet Protocol protocol numbers'? Am I missing something here? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 17:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Internet Protocol is itself able to carry different protocols. These protocols are identified by protocol numbers. Protocol appears twice because we have a protocol within a protocol. --Kvng (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "IP in IP" is misleading

Protocol 4 is currently listed like this:

Decimal	Hex	Keyword	Protocol	References
4	0x04	IP	IP in IP (encapsulation)	RFC 2003

RFC2003 defines IPv4 tunneled in IPv4. (the iana website also refers to RFC2003 in it's list). However it depend on where the number 4 is used which tunneling protocol is used. If it is in a IPv4 packet, IP in IP is probably the correct link. But in a IPv6 packet, it should link to 4in6. And in a Authentication Headers (AH) or Encapsulating Security Payloads (ESP) it should link to IPsec.

So I think it is better to just call it IPv4 and refer to RFC791. (compare this to protocol 41 - which links to IPv6 and not 6in4 or any other encapsulation protocol):

Decimal	Hex	Keyword	Protocol	References
41	0x29	IPv6	IPv6 (encapsulation)	RFC 2473, RFC 3056

--wimmel (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like this is used for several different applications. I would propose that we add a note to the entry explaining this. Here's the wiki syntax for notes. --Kvng (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete

It would be helpful to know which of these protocol numbers became obsolete. I suggest to add a column Obsolete with the date or the RFC that made them obsolete. Theking2 (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obsolete is a de-faqto category, finding which rfc caused the last user or potential user to take a course that would not involve that protocol number is very hard. TristanDC (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Value?

This list does not appear to provide any encyclopedic value compared to the list published by IANA. I'm tempted to WP:PROD it to save us the hassle of maintaining it. ~KvnG 17:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One value is that it has wikilinks to articles about each of the protocols. The Internet protocol list is very rarely changed and so the maintenance load is low. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of IP protocol numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024510/http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/714x0b2.pdf to http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/714x0b2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPsec

Protocols 50 and 51 are, collectively, IPsec.

Would anyone object if I changed:

 0x32 	50 	ESP 	Encapsulating Security Payload 	RFC 4303
 0x33 	51 	AH 	Authentication Header 	RFC 4302

To:

 0x32 	50 	ESP 	Encapsulating Security Payload (IPsec) 	RFC 4303
 0x33 	51 	AH 	Authentication Header (IPsec)	RFC 4302

Regards, Ben Aveling 00:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About protocol 84 duplication

Protocol 84 no longer needs to be listed twice. Sallersanyi (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sallersanyi: Thanks – SESU is no WP:RS but IANA is authoritative. Since TTP is freshly obsoleted I've added a remark. --Zac67 (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]