RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
- To: "David V James" <email@example.com>, "CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Geoff Thompson" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
- From: "Mike Moreton" <Mike.Moreton@synad.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:35:20 +0100
- Cc: "Tony Jeffree" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Johnston, Dj" <email@example.com>, "David Halasz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, "IEEE 802.1" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Reply-To: "Mike Moreton" <Mike.Moreton@synad.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-Index: AcOLyoybcgnThuEPQlCXcszV2mAXuAAIP32g
- Thread-Topic: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
A couple of comments on your points:
(1) I don't think that 802 need to be allocated an OUI. All that needs
happen is that an OUI be allocated for use by "the body that
standardises the protocol in which the OUI is used". So in this case,
TGi could make use of the OUI, as the field in question is in a TGI
defined message, while the IETF could use exactly the same value in a
message that they defined. The context means that there is no chance of
(2) With the TGi format it is possible for an organisation to use an
(almost) arbitrarily long internal structure that is not limited to one
byte, or even five. It's not obvious, and it's not terribly efficient,
but I would say that's a reasonable trade-off if it makes all the most
likely uses more efficient.
Synad Technologies Ltd.
From: David V James [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 06 October 2003 06:26
To: CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1); 'Geoff Thompson'; Mike Moreton
Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; firstname.lastname@example.org; IEEE
802.1; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
There are sort-of two questions here, I think.
1) Can an organization/standard get an OUI?
Yes. One should be sufficient for all of 802.
I know the MSC has one, I suspect that 802
already has one.
2) Is a single OUI sufficient to identify the
format and function of organizationally-specific data?
(if this happens to be applicable).
No. An EUI-48 or EUI-64 serves this need.
See extact below.
The 24-bit OUI/company_id value is intended to identify the
organization that administers the remaining bits in
EUI-48 and EUI-64 values. The OUI/company_id value should not
be used (in isolation) to identify a vendor or the format
of vendor-dependent information. When necessary to identify
the vendor of a hardware device, an EUI-48 identifier
should be used. This allows large organizations to assign
distinct EUI-48 identifiers, so that each division can be
identified as a distinct "vendor". Alternatively, small groups
within an SDO (standards development organization) could be
identified by distinct EUI-48 identifiers administered by
their sponsoring body.
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com
>> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of CONGDON,PAUL
>> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 10:07 PM
>> To: 'Geoff Thompson'; Mike Moreton
>> Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; email@example.com;
>> 802.1; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
>> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> Throughout this discussion, there has been suggestion of allocating a
>> 'no-vendor' OUI? Why is this necessary? Why doesn't OUI imply
>> 'Organizational Unique Identifier' such as 802.11 or 802.1 or 802.3?
>> can't these 'Organizations' have an OUI? I keep hearing words about
>> commercial entities (aka businesses) having to be responsible
>> for OUIs. It
>> would seem to make sense to me for 802.11 to ask for an OUI that
>> they could
>> use to identify cipher suites (and other things) that they define.