Cell Relay Archive

["ronald h. davis" <ronaldd@lucent.com>]

Paul Koning wrote:
> 
> I know the terminology.  It's not clear that it was intentional
> here.  Even if it was, it's a mistake.  If the use of the IEEE
> identifier were required, it would ensure unique ESIDs (if the
> globally administered values are used) yet allow the use of
> locally administered values as well (with the "local" bit set).
> So the text as written creates ambiguity and removes a guarantee
> without offering any benefit whatsoever in exchange.
> 

i don't know that you need/want to require that the esi be equal to
a mac address when using e.164 format aesa's.  similarly, when using
private numbering plan (pnp) format there may also be no need/want
to have a "required" esi value since it is, in that case, a "private"
numbering plan.

-- 
  __  ______  __  / __/ |       lucent technologies, naperville il, usa
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  .       ronald.h.davis@lucent.com
author of "atm for public networks" published by mcgraw-hill
     http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0071344764