The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[Andrew Smith <asmith@Baynetworks.COM>]

> From atmpost@matmos.hpl.hp.com Thu Jun  1 08:29:57 1995
> To: Mark Laubach <laubach@terra.com21.com>, Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
> Cc: Andy Malis <malis@enigma.acton.timeplex.com>,
>         Bryan Gleeson <bryang@eng.adaptec.com>, ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: New version of encaps I-D  
> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 11:08:36 -0400
> From: Andy Malis <malis@enigma.acton.timeplex.com>

Andy,

> The reasons I don't like using a PID in the 00-00-00 space are that
> it's really NOT an Ethertype, there's little or no precedent for
> further network layer protocol demux once you've demuxed on an
> Ethertype in the 00-00-00 space, and I thought it would be pretty neat
> for us to be the first users of the IANA's OUI-PID space.
> 
> Keith McCloghrie writes:
> > I agree that option 4 is the best of the bunch.  To extend your
> > reasoning, it seems to me that MARS is a new protocol - so, using a new
> > PID value, rather than a new OUI value, is more appropriate, as well as
> > "cheaper", to indicate the use of MARS.
> 
> Well, since MARS is a REALLY new protocol, there's no reason to not
> use a new OUI as well! :-)
> 
> If the WG would like to stay in OUI 00-00-00 (pure option 4), that's
> really OK with me too.  I much prefer either pure option 4 or my
> "morf'd option 3 & 4", as Mark so accurately put it, to any of the
> other alternatives.

I know this is an IETF list, but I'm not that comfortable with the multiprotocol
implications of choosing an OUI which is under IANA control. Does IANA mind
administering numbers for things like NetBIOS and IPX too? 

Grenville has very carefully made sure (at least in versions -01 ... -04; I haven't
yet digested -05) that MARS stuff is all very protocol-neutral and it would be
clumsy if it used 00-00-5E for IP and a different one for other protocols.

If the choice of OUI really is arbitrary then I would suggest using one that is
protocol-neutral e.g. 00-A0-3E (and we could get some PIDs next week if time
is important :-)

If multiprotocol-ness is irrelevant for this IETF WG then just say so and I
will be quiet.


> Cheers,
> Andy

Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	+1 408 764 1574
Technology Synergy Unit				FAX:	+1 408 988 5525
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	asmith@baynetworks.com
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************