Re: A Question about L2 ID .....

Hi Simone,

I think the current specification doesn't conflict with using the
format for actual identifiers you refer to, as long as it contains a unique
(technology specific) L2 identifier (like MAC addresses).
I also agree that we should reuse specified numbers and formats if possible.
However, I don't see a need to specify in the CARD protocol
document the actual L2 identifier to be used for individual access 
technologies.
But I also think it is needed to have control on the numbers assigned to 
L2 "type"
(see issue#30), hence, the proposal is to request IANA for number assignment
and initial types could be the ones indicated in the recent draft. If 
accuracy
of types must be larger (802.11a, 802.11b, FDD CDMA, TDD CDMA,...),
this should be discussed on the mailing list. We checked also here
whether or not already existing type identifiers can be re-used, but
did not find something appropriate. If you know about available
type identifiers, please send a pointer to this information.

marco

Simone Molendini wrote:

>> The CARD protocol should be able to operate on any kind of (wireless) L2
>> technologies including their various MAC/link address formats.
>> So the CARD protocol does not assume any single format for MAC/link
>> addresses.
>> Hope this answers your question.
>
>
> First of all, thank you for your help.
> I've got this point and I agree: the use of a L2 (wireless) MAC for a 
> plurality of technologies needs.
>
> I just think that it's a waste of work defining a syntax when a 
> standard, to this purpose, already exists: the (Modified) EUI-64 is 
> used, for example, to derive a *number* of kind of MACs into IPv6 
> addresses (see Appendix A in RFC3513).
>
> If the CARD protocol aims to define a global MAC, EUI-64 is an easy 
> solution (IMHO).
>
> Simone
>
>>
>> Eunsoo
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Simone Molendini" <[email protected]>
>> To: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 9:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] A Question about L2 ID .....
>>
>>
>>>  I have concerns on the fact that par. 5.1.3.1 defines the "L2 type"
>>>  and "L2 ID" fields as a L2 general ID (with unassigned values and
>>>  prefixes).
>>>
>>>  The fixed-length EUI-64 is used as a global identifier in a number of
>>>  the format prefixes Interface IDs (including IEEE802).
>>>
>>>  Why using what haven't been already defined when something else has
>>>  been defined and registered?
>>>
>>>  Simone
>>>
>>>  >It's the MAC address.
>>>  >
>>
>>  > >         jak
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby