Re: [802SEC] P802c PAR [was Re: [802SEC] FW: [STDS-802-11] Fwd: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Nov 14 Plenary - "PARs under Consideration" Posted]
On 10/21/14 12:00 PM, "Pat Thaler" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>1) The RAC decided on a quadrant for assigning the CIDs from. It seemed
>like it was most likely that those doing local administration have chosen
> from the bottom end (i.e. all zeros in the upper bytes except for the
>local/global bit). So they didn¹t choose that quadrant for CID
>assignments. IIRC, it was also mentioned that perhaps some local
>administrators had started from the top of the address space.
> So one of the middle quadrants was selected for CIDs as it is less
>likely to conflict with existing local administration of MAC addresses.
Since CID assignments allocate a total of zero addresses the likelihood
of conflict with locally administered addresses has nothing to do with
any quadrants from which CIDs have been assigned.
>The choice of the address blocks for the FCoE protocol didn¹t enter into
>the RAC decision at least I don¹t recall that from discussion. That
> be one case of a protocol that defines the use of fixed blocks but
>probably not the only case. Some virtualization vendors also use fixed
>blocks from local address space. So it didn¹t seem possible to choose a
>quadrant that aligned with existing use of local
> address blocks for protocols and that wasn¹t a factor. If FCoE¹s usage
>had fallen within the CID range, then I would have asked that those CIDs
>be assigned to INCITS T11 to grandfather the use.
>There has been some discussion of whether to create a listing of those
>blocks with use that predates CID creation so that people (e.g. those
>wanting to do
> local administration) can look up the use and avoid it.
>One quadrant seems adequate for local address administration and that
>leaves two quadrants for reserving for future use.
>That does leave the possibility of a large random address assignment
>space with up to 44 bits of randomness. I stated some concerns about the
> 802.11 for this. Even with 44 or 46 bits, there is a potential for
>address conflicts occurring looking at a single network, they would be
>extremely rare, but multiplied by all the networks and all the operating
>time, conflicts will occur at times and there
> doesn¹t seem to be any mechanism proposed for conflict detection and
>resolution. Once one has a mechanism for conflict detection and
>resolution, why does one need such a large space? The proposal that
>currently proposes using the whole of the local address
> space for random assignment potentially conflicting with any other use
>of that space has no accompanying justification for why that is okay.
Extremely rare becomes much less rare if you reduce the space by 75%.
But your question works both ways. Just because one has an address
resolution protocol that coordinates the administration of locally
assigned addresses on a particular LAN, why do you need to restrict
the available addresses that protocol can use?
>2) The statement in IEEE Std 802 remains true in intent. The address
>assignments made by protocols using CID blocks will be local assignments
>and will have
> a global uniqueness requirement. The text will need a bit of change
>because now the IEEE RA is assigning values for some of the local space.
>I.e. ³IEEE RA-assigned values² referred to the ³IEEE RA-assigned OUI
>values². As with many other standards, one will
> need to look at each use of OUI and decide whether it should be ³OUI² or
>³OUI or CID² depending on the context.
I am absolutely opposed to this idea. CIDs get assigned zero addresses.
When using an address with "the U/L bit set to 1, the remaining bits (i.e.
all bits except the I/G and U/L bits) are locally administered and should
not be expected to meet the uniqueness requirement of the IEEE RA-assigned
values." (to quote IEEE Std 802).
Let me put some emphasis on "all bits except the I/G and U/L" and "not
expected to meet the uniqueness requirement."
You can't say that that "the statement in IEEE Std 802 remains true in
intent" because you also say address assignments out of things that do not
get addresses assigned (CIDs) "will have a global uniqueness requirement"
when IEEE Std 802 specifically says any such address is "not expected to
meet the uniqueness requirements". There is no adherence to the intent of
IEEE Std 802 in your proposal. It is actually in opposition to IEEE Std
>3) Part of the purpose of the amendment is to provide better guidance on
>the use of local address space. There is very little said about it
> consequence of this is that it has had very little usage. This amendment
>would unlock that potential by providing that guidance and would also
>protect the much more stressed global address space.
There is already all the guidance we need to use the locally administered
address space: set the U/L bit to 1 and use the remaining bits (i.e. all
except the I/G and U/L bits) for local address administration. There is no
uniqueness requirement and being a local assignment you are responsible for
guaranteeing that there are no conflicts on your LAN (if you choose to use
address assignment protocol in service of that responsibility then good
Again, there is no problem that you're solving by partitioning the local
address space but you are creating problems when you do so.
>From: Roger Marks [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 8:44 PM
>To: ROBERT GROW
>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; STDS-802-1-L@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Dan
>Harkins; Pat Thaler
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] P802c PAR [was Re: [802SEC] FW: [STDS-802-11] Fwd:
>[802SEC] IEEE 802 Nov 14 Plenary - "PARs under Consideration" Posted]
>Thanks for your reply and views. Thanks also to Pat for additional
>perspectives. The discussion has been very helpful. I still have
>questions and concerns, though. Here are a few issues on my mind:
>(1) You've suggested that there are "Lots of possibilities here. How
>about 44 bits? One quadrant of the local space for the 'wild west', one
>for CID based automated assignment, one for Š" Pat has also been talking
>about quadrants. Has the RAC has already decided
> to divide the local space four ways? I don't see that position
>documented anywhere. However, when I look at the
>CID Public Listing
><http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/cid/cid.txt>, I see that the
>RA has kept just 4 of the 24 bits consistent across the assignments.
>Those 4 bits are the 4 LSBs of the first byte; in each case, 1010. The
>last of these
> are the 802 local and multicast bits. In fact, after only the first 6
>public CIDs were assigned, not a single bit (other than the 4 LSBs of the
>first byte) had been assigned consistently. So, based on this review, it
>appears to me as if the RA is assigning
> all CIDs with "10" in the bits adjacent to the 802-specific bits and
>ensuring that no other bit of the CID is used consistently. Can I take
>that as a sign that the RAC policy is to stake out a full quadrant of the
>local space for CIDs?
>Pat also mentioned existing Fibre Channel over Ethernet applications in
>the local space. It seems that the FCoE standard is limited to a small
>slice of the "11" quadrant. It looks as if the RAC may have decided to
>avoid conflict with FCoE when it settled on
> "10". So it looks like the RAC intends to use "00" or "01" for the "wild
>(2) I have no qualms about the RAC creating the CID and assigning values.
>However, I still see contradictions in building a MAC address from such a
>CID. Per IEEE Std 802, "If the U/L bit is set to 1, the remaining bits
>(i.e., all bits except the I/G and U/L
> bits) are locally administered and should not be expected to meet the
>uniqueness requirement of the IEEE RA-assigned values." [Of course, a
>future 802c amendment could alter this situation.]
>(3) Perhaps my request for a "clear indication of the expected usage
>model" was overstated. Still, I think that the CSD require more
>explanation of the intention and potential effects. Under 1.2.2,
>variances in conformance with IEEE Std 802 need to be "thoroughly
> disclosed and reviewed." Also, since the number space is finite, we
>ought to consider not just the Broad Market Potential of the project but
>also what sort of Broader Market Potential we might be trading away.
>ROBERT GROW wrote:
>Roger, and others:
>Please see inline comments, responses to questions below. (Again,
>everything is personal opinion, not RAC position.)
>On Oct 8, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Roger Marks <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>I share many of Dan's concerns about partitioning the local space.
>I take Bob's point that RAC policy does not oppose the use of the CID in
>addresses. In fact, I read RAC's
>EUI tutorial <http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/tut/eui.pdf> as
>specifically suggesting such use:
>*"A CID has the X bit equal to one and consequently that places any
>address with the CID as its first three octets in the local address space
>(U/L = 1)."
>*"a CID can be extended to create a locally administered MAC address"
>*"If a CID is used to create MAC addresses, the X bit becomes the U/L
>bit. Any such addresses are by definition locally administered and
>consequentially may not be globally unique."
>So I think that it's difficult to justify opposition to the P802c PAR
>based on RAC policy for the CID. But the fundamental concerns remain. I'd
>like to get a better understanding of what the RAC was thinking. I can't
>understand the explanation in the EUI tutorial
> ["CID though can be a useful tool in management of the local address
>space to help a network administrator keep local addresses unique to a
>network (rather than being globally unique."]. I also don't see an
>explanation in the draft 802c CSD.
><RMG> If a vendor for example is creating virtual machines, if they use
>their CID, it will by definition be unique from any other vendor using
>their CID as the basis for creating local
> addresses for virtualization or any other purpose. There doesn¹t have
>to be a single address administration function. Other thoughts of RAC
>members (no policy on any of this that I recall):
>1. If only a portion of the CID space is used for automated assignment,
>then we can reserve another portion to be the ³wild west² where a Local
>Address administrator still has free reign.
>2. We can gather up and publish somehow a list of local addresses that
>people have assumed to be usable. Some local addresses are specified in
>3. We can consider giving priority to current OUI assignees to get the
>corresponding CID (numbers only differing by the U/L bit). This would
>legitimize those users that assumed (they
> had rights to do this). (Big debate should we reaward someone that just
>assumed rights that weren¹t expressly granted?) BTW, The RAC
>administrator just received a question last month stating the assumption
>that they had rights to flip the U/L bit of an assigned
> OUI and nobody else would be assigning a Local Address with that
>value‹nothing that RAC policy suggests they could assume but not uncommon.
><RMG> What of any of this RAC thinking/discussion would be included in
>the p802c draft is not an issue for the PAR, but rather for draft
>development and balloting. BTW, it wasn¹t only
> RAC thinking, but 802.1 and IETF that contributed to launching the CID
>recognizing possibilities for use in automated local address creation.
>I'd like to understand the perceived role of the "Company" owning the CID
>used in a MAC address. Is it:
>(a) The device manufacturer? This seems to be like saying that every
>locally-assigned DHCP address in my house should have some bits that are
>assigned based on the manufacturer. What use is that? [OK, diagnosis may
>be a little more convenient if an OUI happens
> to correspond to the name brand on the device, but that's a trivial
>advantage, and it's a disadvantage for privacy.]
><RMG> On the privacy point, a CID based address is better than an EUI
>used as a MAC address as it is not repetitively used by a device (24-bits
>could still effectively be random) from
> the snooping point of view. If it were turned around and the CID is one
>used by the local address administrator, then the local MAC address that
>a device is using tell you nothing about that device. Using CID in
>diagnosis was not a consideration as far as
> I recall either during RAC discussions or in possible protocols I¹ve
><RMG> If there were multiple DHCP devices in your house that didn¹t
>communicate, that would be one way to allow both DHCP devices to not
>assign duplicates. I believe Fibre Channel Over
> Ethernet has sufficient specification (like DHCP) so that this would not
>be needed, but if the RA assigns the appropriate CID to FCOE, then no
>virtulization vendor or Internet of Things vendor would be assigning
>duplicates with the FCOE application.
><RMG> There are also possibilities that the function is more that of a
>software vendor, operator or other rather than a hardware manufacturer.
>(Though CID use in many of these cases is
> not for MAC addresses but rather for Context Dependent Identifiers.)
>(b) The local network administrator? This seems to be like saying that
>every locally-assigned DHCP address in my house should have some bits
>that are unique to my house.
> What use is that? Local is local; what good is making it partially
><RMG> The most consistent policy for use of the local address space is
>that a local address administrator would assure no duplicates were
>created. That has existed since the early 1980s.
> IBM proposals back then indicated a preference for only using local
>addresses for 802.5 (16-bit ring number and 32-bit node number). That
>would have operated under this broad rule for the local address
>administrator. Perhaps I¹m missing your point with
> the DHCP example here.
>(c) An operator? For example, a gas meter has a gas company CID and an
>electrical meter has a power company CID on the same LAN. Seems like a
>problem better solved by VLAN,.
><RMG> VLAN isn¹t the answer to duplicate addresses. I don¹t recall VLANs
>being part of RAC considerations though.
>(d) Something else?
><RMG> Where there is no standard to govern things, the CID allows private
>protocols that do not have to cooperate with other protocols. Obviously
>if p802c is successful, then it will be
> referenced by other standards and be used by private protocols rather
>than just picking local addresses for the application as is now sometimes
>done. CID of course has non-address uses that can reduce the consumption
>of OUIs. For example, some standards
> specify use of an OUI for non-address applications. I would guess
>though that this was not part of your concern here.
>If I were a network administrator, I might see value in partitioning the
>local space following the IP model; in other words, on the basis on
>topology, so I could make forwarding decisions on the basis of a subset
>of the address and not need to store every MAC
> address in a switching table. But, if I were going to implement such a
>system, I'd want to locally administer 46 bits, not 24.
><RMG> Lots of possibilities here. How about 44 bits? One quadrant of
>the local space for the ³wild west², one for CID based automated
>assignment, one for Š Realistically, the problem
> here is how to best accommodate the fact that the entire space is the
>³wild west² today, no rules other than some local administrator being
>responsible for preventing duplicates, but reality being that some uses
>of the local address space are in use. From
> my perspective, the RAC is really serious about not declaring other
>legacy uses ³illegal², something 46-bits probably could come closer to
>doing. I believe the RAC consensus is that any local address structuring
>will take years to get pushed into the marketplace.
> We started that by getting appropriate warning into IETF descriptions
>of 802 addressing and OUI and CID. We tried to get it into the revision
>of Std 802. We will work to get things tightened up in many IEEE
>standards that use the OUI registry especially
> other IEEE standards that use 802 addressing. But this is and will be a
>long process not solved by p802c even though I believe p802c helps with a
>solution. Any proposal that ignores the reality of legacy use and simply
>assumes local addresses are not in
> use, I believe is flawed, whether that assumption is in 802 or IETF or
>were to become a property of any standard that attempts to jump into the
>local address space.
>My personal opinion is the primary RAC responsibility is to ensure the
>viability of its registries. The two I worry about most are OUI and
>EtherType. I also believe that IEEE Std 802
> is the right place to standardize 802 style MAC addresses. The two are
>related but there is an important distinction in responsibilities. An
>IEEE 802c amendment will have been subjected to a balloting process open
>to all interested parties. A RAC policy
> isn¹t subject to the same process.
>I think that the PAR and CSD need to provide a clear indication of the
>expected usage model, articulating its advantages and disadvantages.
><RMG> I disagree in principle. Such details are for a project to decide.
> To me, is there a reasonable solution (technical and economic
>feasibility) to bring structure to the local address
> space and make local addresses more usable for IoT, virtulization, etc.
>is the requirement for approving a PAR. Sometimes we write the PAR to
>standardize a solution, but that is not IEEE-SA policy. The PAR serves
>as an announcement to the world of activity
> being initiated to all interested parties, in other words, a PAR to
>address a problem or opportunity is really what is intended by IEEE-SA
>process. I¹m expect I¹ve overstated your position here, and I¹ll leave
>it to the PAR proponents to accommodate provision
> of more detail.
>I agree with Adrian that a forum at the Plenary would be very helpful.
>ROBERT GROW wrote:
>I'd like to clarify/correct a couple points in Dan's email. (Personal
>comments, not comments from the RAC.) 1. Talking about what the CID has
>been historically is a bit misleading. The CID has very little history,
>only having been introduced this year. The RAC has never stated what it
>would not be used for, contrary to a possible inference from the
>assertion that the CID was ONLY for non-address applications. I'm not
>aware of any RAC statement or document that says a CID shouldn't be used
>for local address assignment. 2. The possibility of using a three-octet
>value with the U/L bit set as the base for local address assignment has a
>very long history independent of any RAC policy supporting the practice
>(nor RAC policy to prevent such practice). (Some have assumed and
>standards have even specified local addresses based on setting the U/L
>bit of an assigned OUI.) 3. The possibility for recommended practices or
>standards specifying use of a CID in assigning a local address was a RAC
>consideration in recommending to the BOG that a CID product be
>introduced. So, the idea underlying p802c is consistent with RAC
>considerations in development and introduction of CIDs. 4. I would
>expect RAC members (me for one) and perhaps even RAC mandatory
>coordination comments would object to anything in p802c that declares
>legacy uses "illegal". I find nothing in the p802c PAR that indicates
>the specifications would do this. On the contrary, all presentations I
>have seen for "automated" assignment of local addresses (rather than
>assignment by a local address administrator), except for pure
>randomization, recognize and deal with duplicate local address assignment
> These proposals recognize legacy use of the local space, and minimize
>the impacts of duplicate addresses on network operation. Bob
>Growbob.email@example.comM: 858 705 1829 On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:09 PM,
>"Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM>
>Dear EC, Feedback from Dan Harkins. His argument makes sense to me.I'd
>like to see a forum at the Plenary where this discussion can take place.
>Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)Tel: +44
>(7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
>----------------------------------------------Intel Corporation (UK)
>LimitedRegistered No. 1134945 (England)Registered Office: Pipers Way,
>Swindon SN3 1RJVAT No: 860 2173 47 -----Original Message-----From: ***
>IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDSfirstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Dan
>HarkinsSent: 06 October 2014 18:27To:
>STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [STDS-802-11] Fwd: [802SEC]
>IEEE 802 Nov 14 Plenary - "PARs under Consideration" Posted --- This
>message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector --- Hi Jon,
>Thank you for the opportunity to comment on one of these PARs. I have
>serious problems with the 802c PAR. This proposes forming a group to
>partition and allocate portions of the local address space (those
>ethernet addresses with the "local" bit set to 1). Currently the local
>address space has 2^46 entries in it (48 bits with local bit = 1 and
>broadcast/multicast = 0).There are a number of issues with this plan.
>First of all, the IEEE RAC has been assigning OUIs for
>years.Historically, with an OUI an assignee also got 2^24 unique
>addresses assigned (an MA-L). Now the IEEE RAC is requiring first-time
>applicants to apply for a MA-M or MA-S first, providing 2^20 or 2^12
>addresses, respectively. In any event, purchasing of an OUI gets an
>assignment of globally-unique addresses. Also, the IEEE RAC will sell a
>"company ID", or CID.CIDs are intended for "non-address applications"
>such as protocol identifiers or context-dependent identifiers and
>assignees get a total of zero addresses, which makes sense (non-address
>application gets no addresses). These CIDs look just like OUIs, they are
>24 bits, except if you were to construct an address out of a CID it would
>be in the local address space because the difference between an OUI and
>CID is a bit which maps to the "local" bit. This has not been a problem
>historically because CIDs are for "non-address applications" and you
>should not be forming addresses out of CIDs so there could be no
>conflict. This PAR wants to allocate a portion of the local address
>space using IEEE RAC assigned CIDs. It actually wants to form addresses
>out of things that have been assigned for non-address applications. That
>does not seem to be consistent with the past or current practice of the
>IEEE RAC. And it creates new problems that IEEE RAC assignment of CIDs
>did not used to have, namely devices that use the local address space
>today may now become "illegal" as they will infringe on addresses this
>802c group may allocate if the PAR is approved. Another problems is that
>applications that want to randomize MAC addresses, for example following
>the recommendations from 11-14/0367r2, the probability of a collision of
>randomly-chosen MAC addresses must be kept as remote as possible.
>Partitioning the local address space will vastly increase the probability
>of collision and when there's a collision of MAC addresses on a network
>there are networking problems. Randomly-chosen MAC addresses do not need
>to be globally unique, they just need to be unique on the
>locally-switched network. As soon as a router is reached the addresses
>don't matter-- i.e. a device on the other side of the router could choose
>the same MAC address as my device does and that's not a problem. Using
>the birthday paradox we can tell the probability of a collision p(N:C)
>with C being the number of MAC addresses available to choose from and N
>being the number of STAs on a locally-switched network. How many STAs can
>we expect? Well for a small IEEE/verilan kind of network it's going to be
>less than 5000. The record for the largest 802.11 deployment is 30,000+
>simultaneous STAs seen (Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, CA at a 49ers
>game). If the entire local address space is available we get: p(500,
>2^46) = 0.0000000018 p(1000, 2^46) = 0.0000000071 p(5000, 2^46) =
>0.0000001776 p(10000, 2^46) = 0.0000007105 p(30000, 2^46) = 0.00000639
>(about 1:156,000) p(64000, 2^46) = 0.0000291 (about 1:34000) Keep in mind
>that modern switches don't really function too well when the forwarding
>table gets too big (which is why vendors recommend it not get bigger than
>32k even though the theoretical max is 64k). If the 802c PAR requires
>randomly choosing based on a CID we end up with: p(500, 2^24) = 0.0074
>p(1000, 2^24) = 0.029 p(5000, 2^24) = 0.525 and that's already worse than
>a coin flip, for just 5000 STAs. Actually, the probability of collision
>for an average home network with the 802c partitioning, p(15, 2^24), is
>about the same as it is for the largest 802.11 network ever without the
>802c partitioning, p(30000, 2^46). So this PAR will guarantee that
>collisions will happen constantly on even the smallest 802.11 network.
>This PAR will guarantee chaos on a network of any reasonable size. To
>sum, this PAR will create problems with the way the IEEE RAC has
>historically allocated CIDs (they are for non-address purposes and you
>get no addresses) and it will guarantee chaos on switched networks. Well
>what problem does this PAR solve if it's producing all these problems you
>ask? It doesn't look like it solves a problem. It says that
>"[i]ncreasing use of virtual machines and Internet of Things (IoT)
>devices could exhaust the global address space if global addresses are
>assigned. This project will enable protocols that automatically configure
>addresses from a portion of the local address space. Such protocols will
>allow virtual machines and IoT devices to obtain a local address without
>local administration." But these devices can already automatically
>configure addresses from the local address space by just choosing
>randomly and the probability of collision is very remote. This PAR is
>actually describing a non-problem-- IoT devices cannot obtain local
>addresses without local administration-- and then proposing to create
>huge problems because of it-- partitioning of the local address space.
>I am strongly opposed to this PAR. IEEE 802 should not be approving
>groups that will cause huge problems on networks, especially when they do
>not appear to provide any tangible benefit. Thank you for giving me this
>opportunity to express my opinion on the 802c PAR. Regards, Dan.
>---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.