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

["Glen Zorn" <gwz@cisco.com>]

owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org
<mailto:owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org> writes:

> I agree with DVJ that 00-00-00 should not be used (without Xerox's
> permission, has anyone tried to get this?). Since it appears that
> preliminary equipment has been shipped with another OUI in the field,
> chnage the text to expalin that 00-00-00 is not an OUI but a
> something else appears to be a flagrant attempt to downgrade Xeroz's
> OUI. That can't stand.     
> 
> I object to DVJ's objection (1), wearing all my hats - IEEE member,
> RAC member, 802.1 interworking task group chair. I disagree that all
> public code points derived from the OUI need to be EUI-48 or longer.
> To demand that TGi change the length of this field is simply
> unnecessary torture.

Why not use the SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers) the usage of which
(in RADIUS & L2TP) this field is modeled after?  They are (or can be) 24
bits long, are unique & easily obtainable, and 0 is reserved for special
usage...   
 
> 
> Mick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of David V James
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 12:24 PM To: David Halasz; Geoff
> Thompson; Mike Moreton; Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj;
> stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org;
> stds-802-sec@ieee.org; millardo@dominetsystems.com; Hal.Keen@att.net
> Subject: RE: Re: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00   
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> In response to:
>>> Any objections to 802.11i changing the Suite selector to the
>>> following?
> 
> Not sure is this question was directed to myself (DVJ),
> or simply forwarded as an observer. Assuming opinion
> was requested:
> 
> Objection from DVJ as IEEE/RAC member:
>   1) Distinctive numbers shold be EUI-48 based.
>      a) More standard.
>      b) Allows continued usage of IABs.
>   2) The all zero OUI should not be used.
>      This usage identifies Xerox as the authority for
>      ensuring uniqueness of following dependentIDs,
>      which is not the case.
> 
> 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: owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of David Halasz
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 12:11 PM To: Geoff Thompson; Mike
> Moreton; Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE
> 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org;
> millardo@dominetsystems.com; Hal.Keen@att.net Subject: Fwd: Re:
> [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00   
> 
> 
> Any objections to 802.11i changing the Suite selector to the
> following? 
> 
> Suite Type - 4 octets in length.
> 
> Type            Meaning
> 00-00-00-00     Use Group Key cipher suite
> 00-00-00-01     WEP-40
> 00-00-00-02     TKIP
> 00-00-00-03     Reserved
> 00-00-00-04     CCMP  default in an RSNA
> 00-00-00-05     WEP-104
> Other           Undefined
> 
>         Dave H.
> 
> 
> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:32:20 -0400
> To: "Hal Keen" <Hal.Keen@att.net>
> From: David Halasz <dhala@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
> Cc: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>, "Mike Moreton"
> <Mike.Moreton@synad.com>, "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>,
> "Johnston, Dj" <dj.johnston@intel.com>, <stds-802-11@ieee.org>, "IEEE
> 802.1" <stds-802-1@ieee.org>, <stds-rac@ieee.org>,
> <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>, <millardo@dominetsystems.com>    
> 
> Hi Hal,
> 
> This is a rather large email thread. Instead of answering your
> question directly, I would prefer to include the answer, in a summary
> of the email thread.  
> 
> - The IEEE 802.11i draft has "Suite Selectors". The Suite selector is
> sent in an RSN Information Element 
> - The Suite selector has the format
>         OUI 3 octets, Suite Type 1 octet
> - The Cipher Suite Selector table is currently the following,
> OUISuite TypeMeaning 00:00:000Use Group Key cipher suite
> 00:00:001WEP-40 00:00:002TKIP 00:00:003Reserved 00:00:004CCMP 
> default in an RSNA 00:00:005WEP-104 00:00:006-255Reserved Vendor
> OUIOtherVendor Specific OtherAnyReserved    
> 
> 
> - From an earlier email, "...would rather TGi not use 00-00-00
> because that OUI has special meaning in other uses, most notably
> RFC1042....."  
> 
> - From an earlier email (paraphrasing): "Hey, 00-00-00 is Xerox's"
> 
> - A suggestion (I like it, but others don't): "...Use some other
> encoding to carry the semantics "this field does not contain an OUI
> value". For example, given that OUIs will presumably not be allocated
> that would have the I/G bit set when used to generate MAC addresses
> (this is the LS bit of first octet ), maybe this could be used to
> achieve the desired goal..."     
> 
> - A comment, "2) If, by some screw-up, #1 has been violated then the
> screw-up should be fixed. Any proposed repair that proposes to
> continue an incursion into the use of an assigned OUI by an entity
> other than the entity that owns that OUI without the express written
> permission of the current appropriate designated agent of the owner
> of the OUI is not OK!"     
> 
> - Response to above comment(This is the answer to your question),
>    - Please see clause 10.5 of O&A
> 10.5 Encapsulation of Ethernet frames over LLC
> This subclause specifies the standard method for conveying Ethernet
> frames across IEEE 802 LANs that offer only the LLC sublayer, and not
> the Ethernet sublayer, directly above the MAC sublayer. An Ethernet
> frame conveyed on an LLC-only LAN shall be encapsulated in a SNAP PDU
> contained in an LLC PDU of type UI, as follows (see Figure 18): a)
> The Protocol Identification field of the SNAP PDU shall contain a
> protocol identifier in which 1) The three OUI octets each take the
> value zero.     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggested that, the person making the comment, take his own words
> to heart and take appropriate action. 
> 
>         Dave H.
> 
> At 10:52 AM 10/6/2003, Hal Keen wrote:
> 
> Dave:
> 
> Okay, I'll bite; I'm one (actually half) of the 802.2 committee in
> hibernation and a longtime student of the evolution of the O&A. (Not
> by any means the most senior; quite a number of us in 802.1 remember
> when the "OUI" term was invented.)   
> 
> What do you imagine needs to be fixed, with regard to this matter, in
> 802.2? and, for that matter, in the O&A? 
> 
> Hal Keen
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Halasz" <dhala@cisco.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:38 AM
> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks Geoff,
>> 
>> I trust you will proceed to fix 802.2 and the 802 Overview and
>> Architecture document. 
>> 
>>          Dave H.
> 
> 
> 
> Dave Halasz
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
> 4125 Highlander Parkway
> Richfield, OH  44286

Hope this helps,

~gwz

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither..." 
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless
they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." 
-- Voltaire