| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
You're right (9 should also be removed on this basis). My excuse is that I was just looking for anything out of the ordinary, including setting (just) the I/G bit. In fact, there's only one such oddity: 11-00-AA (hex) PRIVATE (*shrug*) Mark --
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600 Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601 ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@xxxxxxxx]
Mark, Just to add to the fun, it seems that some "OUI"s with the L/U bit set have been allocated. In almost -- but not quite -- all cases, the corresponding OUI with the L/U bit clear has been allocated to the same entity. [Get
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/oui/oui.txt and then do: grep '^ .[1235679abABdefDEF]\-' oui.txt|cut -b6-10|while read f; do echo ==== $f; grep "^ ..-$f" oui.txt; done (apologies if this could be done more efficiently using a one-character Perl script or something).] I also have a vague recollection that DECnet used dynamically-assigned MAC addresses with an OUI of AA-xx-xx. Mark --
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600 Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601 ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk From: Stephens, Adrian P [mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx]
fyi … Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA) ---------------------------------------------- From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of ROBERT GROW Roger, and others: Please see inline comments, responses to questions below. (Again, everything is personal opinion, not RAC position.) —Bob On Oct 8, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<RMG> If a vendor for example is creating virtual machines, if they use their CID, it will by definition be unique from any other vendor using their CID as the basis for creating local addresses for virtualization or any other purpose.
There doesn’t have to be a single address administration function. Other thoughts of RAC members (no policy on any of this that I recall): 1. If only a portion of the CID space is used for automated assignment, then we can reserve another portion to be the “wild west” where a Local Address administrator still has free reign. 2. We can gather up and publish somehow a list of local addresses that people have assumed to be usable. Some local addresses are specified in standards. 3. We can consider giving priority to current OUI assignees to get the corresponding CID (numbers only differing by the U/L bit). This would legitimize those users that assumed (they had rights to do this). (Big debate should we reaward
someone that just assumed rights that weren’t expressly granted?) BTW, The RAC administrator just received a question last month stating the assumption that they had rights to flip the U/L bit of an assigned OUI and nobody else would be assigning a Local Address
with that value—nothing that RAC policy suggests they could assume but not uncommon. <RMG> What of any of this RAC thinking/discussion would be included in the p802c draft is not an issue for the PAR, but rather for draft development and balloting. BTW, it wasn’t only RAC thinking, but 802.1 and IETF that contributed
to launching the CID recognizing possibilities for use in automated local address creation.
<RMG> On the privacy point, a CID based address is better than an EUI used as a MAC address as it is not repetitively used by a device (24-bits could still effectively be random) from the snooping point of view. If it were turned around
and the CID is one used by the local address administrator, then the local MAC address that a device is using tell you nothing about that device. Using CID in diagnosis was not a consideration as far as I recall either during RAC discussions or in possible
protocols I’ve heard described. <RMG> If there were multiple DHCP devices in your house that didn’t communicate, that would be one way to allow both DHCP devices to not assign duplicates. I believe Fibre Channel Over Ethernet has sufficient specification (like DHCP)
so that this would not be needed, but if the RA assigns the appropriate CID to FCOE, then no virtulization vendor or Internet of Things vendor would be assigning duplicates with the FCOE application. <RMG> There are also possibilities that the function is more that of a software vendor, operator or other rather than a hardware manufacturer. (Though CID use in many of these cases is not for MAC addresses but rather for Context Dependent
Identifiers.)
<RMG> The most consistent policy for use of the local address space is that a local address administrator would assure no duplicates were created. That has existed since the early 1980s. IBM proposals back then indicated a preference
for only using local addresses for 802.5 (16-bit ring number and 32-bit node number). That would have operated under this broad rule for the local address administrator. Perhaps I’m missing your point with the DHCP example here.
<RMG> VLAN isn’t the answer to duplicate addresses. I don’t recall VLANs being part of RAC considerations though.
<RMG> Where there is no standard to govern things, the CID allows private protocols that do not have to cooperate with other protocols. Obviously if p802c is successful, then it will be referenced by other
standards and be used by private protocols rather than just picking local addresses for the application as is now sometimes done. CID of course has non-address uses that can reduce the consumption of OUIs. For example, some standards specify use of an OUI
for non-address applications. I would guess though that this was not part of your concern here.
<RMG> Lots of possibilities here. How about 44 bits? One quadrant of the local space for the “wild west”, one for CID based automated assignment, one for … Realistically, the problem here is how to best accommodate the fact that the
entire space is the “wild west” today, no rules other than some local administrator being responsible for preventing duplicates, but reality being that some uses of the local address space are in use. From my perspective, the RAC is really serious about not
declaring other legacy uses “illegal”, something 46-bits probably could come closer to doing. I believe the RAC consensus is that any local address structuring will take years to get pushed into the marketplace. We started that by getting appropriate warning
into IETF descriptions of 802 addressing and OUI and CID. We tried to get it into the revision of Std 802. We will work to get things tightened up in many IEEE standards that use the OUI registry especially other IEEE standards that use 802 addressing. But
this is and will be a long process not solved by p802c even though I believe p802c helps with a solution. Any proposal that ignores the reality of legacy use and simply assumes local addresses are not in use, I believe is flawed, whether that assumption is
in 802 or IETF or were to become a property of any standard that attempts to jump into the local address space. My personal opinion is the primary RAC responsibility is to ensure the viability of its registries. The two I worry about most are OUI and EtherType. I also believe that IEEE Std 802 is the right place to
standardize 802 style MAC addresses. The two are related but there is an important distinction in responsibilities. An IEEE 802c amendment will have been subjected to a balloting process open to all interested parties. A RAC policy isn’t subject to the
same process.
<RMG> I disagree in principle. Such details are for a project to decide. To me, is there a reasonable solution (technical and economic feasibility) to bring structure to the local address space and make local addresses more usable for
IoT, virtulization, etc. is the requirement for approving a PAR. Sometimes we write the PAR to standardize a solution, but that is not IEEE-SA policy. The PAR serves as an announcement to the world of activity being initiated to all interested parties, in
other words, a PAR to address a problem or opportunity is really what is intended by IEEE-SA process. I’m expect I’ve overstated your position here, and I’ll leave it to the PAR proponents to accommodate provision of more detail.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
|