RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00

["David V James" <dvj@alum.mit.edu>]

Paul,

Your proposal sounds good, with a small refinement.
A revised possibility is:

"IEEE 802 should allocate an OUI for 802 protocols,
and then assign EUI-48s to each of the dot groups so
that each attribute can be uniquely defined."

This avoids the overheads and complexities of
subassignments within each dot group.

An upside of this is that any group (not just the
dot groups) can assign attribute identifiers, and
can use the more convenient and less costly
Individual Address Block (IAB)for this purpose.

FYI, the IAB is effectively a subset of an OUI,
assigned by the IEEE/RAC, for the purposes of
defining a small number of MAC address and/or
EUI-48 identifiers.
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/pilot-ind.html

Respectfully,
DVJ

David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
      +1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu  


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:paul.congdon@hp.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:45 AM
>> To: 'David V James'; Mike Moreton; CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1);
>> Geoff Thompson
>> Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE
>> 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org;
>> millardo@dominetsystems.com
>> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Given this discussion and with respect to LLDP (802.1AB) and the
>> Organizationally Specific Attributes structure we are defining, 
>> perhaps IEEE
>> 802 should allocate an OUI for 802 protocols, and then assign an 
>> EUI-48 for
>> each of the dot groups so their sets of attributes can be 
>> uniquely defined.
>> The downside of this is the extra overhead being passed around.
>> 
>> The single, "body that standardizes the protocol in which the 
>> OUI is used"
>> alternative to each dot group having their own OUI doesn't work for LLDP
>> where multiple sets of attributes may appear in the same frame.  
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu] 
>> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:10 AM
>> > To: Mike Moreton; CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1); Geoff Thompson
>> > Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; 
>> > stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; 
>> > stds-802-sec@ieee.org; millardo@dominetsystems.com
>> > Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Mike,
>> > 
>> > A couple of refinements:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > >> (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 confusion.
>> > 
>> > Unique numbers should be unique, period. Reuse of the same 
>> > number, in a different context, would require the IEEE/RAC 
>> > and requesters to become experts at defining distinct 
>> > "context". Such expertist is not necessary if all unique 
>> > numbers are unique, despite the context. The applicable 
>> > IEEE/RAC policy statement is online:
>> > 
>> > http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/UseOfEUI.html
>> > However, duplication within each of these spaces is 
>> > forbidden. For example, the EUI-48 values that specify I/O 
>> > driver software interfaces, language codes, and hardware 
>> > model numbers shall never overlap. This no-overlap strategy 
>> > is expected to reduce unintentional duplication of EUI-48 
>> > values, by elimination of subjective application-class 
>> > judgments, although a few more EUI-48 values may be consumed.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > >> (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.
>> > 
>> > Relying on the organisation to define the proper 
>> > subassignment authorities is a risky business and has already 
>> > resulted in several failures. The applicable IEEE/RAC policy 
>> > statement is online:
>> > 
>> > http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/UseOfEUI.html
>> > 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.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Also, please note that the OUI of an EUI-48 or EUI-64 is not 
>> > necessarily the OUI of the company that build the product. 
>> > Its simply the OUI of the company that assigned the remaining 
>> > dependent bits. Thus, your original statement that the IEEE 
>> > 802 group doesn't need an OUI to define standards is true: a 
>> > standard only needs to find an OUI-assigned group willing to 
>> > assign one of their EUI-48 identifiers for this purpose. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Respectfully,
>> > DVJ
>> > 
>> > 
>> > David V. James
>> > 3180 South Ct
>> > Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> > Home: +1.650.494.0926
>> >       +1.650.856.9801
>> > Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> > Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
>> > Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu  
>> > 
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: Mike Moreton [mailto:Mike.Moreton@synad.com]
>> > >> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 2:35 AM
>> > >> To: David V James; CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1); Geoff Thompson
>> > >> Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; 
>> > stds-802-11@ieee.org; 
>> > >> IEEE 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org; 
>> > >> millardo@dominetsystems.com
>> > >> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> David,
>> > >> 
>> > >> 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 confusion.
>> > >> 
>> > >> (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.
>> > >> 
>> > >> Mike Moreton
>> > >> Synad Technologies Ltd.
>> > >>  
>> > >> 
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu]
>> > >> Sent: 06 October 2003 06:26
>> > >> To: CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1); 'Geoff Thompson'; Mike Moreton
>> > >> Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; 
>> > stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE
>> > >> 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org;
>> > >> millardo@dominetsystems.com
>> > >> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> > >> 
>> > >> Paul,
>> > >> 
>> > >> 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.
>> > >> 
>> > >> http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/UseOfEUI.html
>> > >> 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.
>> > >> 
>> > >> DVJ
>> > >> IEEE/RAC member
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> David V. James
>> > >> 3180 South Ct
>> > >> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> > >> Home: +1.650.494.0926
>> > >>       +1.650.856.9801
>> > >> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> > >> Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
>> > >> Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> > >> 
>> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> >> From: owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org 
>> > >> >> [mailto:owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of 
>> > >> >> CONGDON,PAUL
>> > >> >> (HP-Roseville,ex1)
>> > >> >> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 10:07 PM
>> > >> >> To: 'Geoff Thompson'; Mike Moreton
>> > >> >> Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; 
>> > stds-802-11@ieee.org;
>> > >> IEEE
>> > >> >> 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org; 
>> > >> >> millardo@dominetsystems.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?
>> > >> Why
>> > >> >> 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.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Paul
>> > >> >>
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > 
>>