Hi Greg,
You are right. This seems to be carried over from RFC 2460. For people who
have been involved with IPv6 since then this might be natural. As a new implementor
this was confusing to me. Because nobody else complained probably there is no need to
correct it? It is upto the WG to decide.
Regards
Suresh
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 3:01 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan (QB/LMC)
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: RFC 3513 EUI-48/MAC-48 confusion
Hi Suresh,
I think that you are correct that the document
which is referred to indicates the addition
of FFFF for MAC-48 and FFFE for EUI-48.
Maybe this is because the terminology has been
confused previously.
In this instance, though we're definitely
discussing MAC-48's though (as indicated
by the section title).
Suresh Krishnan (QB/LMC) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> Maybe this has been raised before, but I have not found any answers.
> Appendix A of RFC 3513 has the following text
>
> <<<< FROM RFC3513
> Links or Nodes with IEEE 802 48 bit MAC's
>
> [EUI64] defines a method to create a IEEE EUI-64 identifier from an
> IEEE 48bit MAC identifier. This is to insert two octets, with
> hexadecimal values of 0xFF and 0xFE, in the middle of the 48 bit MAC
> (between the company_id and vendor supplied id). For example, the 48
> bit IEEE MAC with global scope
> <<<< FROM RFC3513
>
> The referred document [EUI64] talks about a different method of creating
> EU-I64s from MAC-48s.
> The procedure followed in the RFC seems to be the one recommended for
> EUI-48s. Is this the intended behaviour?
I think that the disinction between EUI-48 and MAC-48
in IETF standards documentation has been mistakenly
blurred.
In this case, EUI-48 and MAC-48 should be considered
distinct numeric spaces, but aren't. The pre-existence
of this text in RFC2460 means that existing implementations
of IPv6 will utilize this incorrect mechanism.
So we may have increased the chance that EUI-64 IPv6
addresses will have collisions (up to doubled! :)
because of the mapping of these spaces onto the same
part of the EUI-64 space in RFC2460 and RFC3513.
I'm not sure if we can really fix this issue, but we may be
able to change the text in the document so that it is correct
(refers to EUI-48 only rather than MAC, or maybe says MAC-48
with FFFF).
Is it worth doing for correctness?
Greg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
