Cell Relay Archive

[albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com]

In article <37691B54.67115CD9@lucent.com>,
  "ronald h. davis" <ronaldd@lucent.com> wrote:
> 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.

I was sort of agreeing with you on this, Ronald, except that the price
you would pay for doing what Paul suggests is pretty trivial.

Basically, Paul is saying that if you want to code up those ESI bits
according to some sort of numbering plan of your own, vs. a flat MAC
address, just set the G/L bit to "locally administered." Now you can
set the rest of the 48 bits any way you please.

You do pay a price: 1 bit's worth of information. So Paul was
exaggerating a tad when he said "no benefit whatever," but the price is
not so high.

--
Bert
manfredi@arl.bna.boeing.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.