The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Jul> msg00415



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Vendor ID (OUI) encoding in LDP section 3.6.1.1

  • From: "Andrew G. Malis" <Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:52:16 -0400
  • Cc: "'Andrew G. Malis'" <Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com>, mpls@UU.NET, Jim Harford <harford@atmware.com>, David Sinicrope <david_sinicrope@yahoo.com>
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2002 16:52:24.0798 (UTC) FILETIME=[5072D7E0:01C23720]

Shahram,

For RSVP-TE (and classical RSVP) private extensions are typically handled 
by asking IANA for a new Class Number allocation in the range 224-255.

Cheers,
Andy

------

At 7/29/2002 08:39 AM -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
>Andy,
>
>IS=a there any reason that this kind of OUI does not exist in RSVP-TE?
>
>Yours,
>-Shahram
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:15 AM
> > To: mpls@UU.NET
> > Cc: Jim Harford; David Sinicrope
> > Subject: Vendor ID (OUI) encoding in LDP section 3.6.1.1
> >
> >
> > RFC 3036 section 3.6.1.1 defines a 32-bit field called the
> > "Vendor ID",
> > which contains a 24-bit IEEE 802 OUI, however the exact
> > encoding of the
> > Vendor ID is not discussed.  Is there anyone that does not
> > agree that the
> > OUI should be right-justified (in bits 8-31) in the field,
> > with bits 0-7
> > set to zero?  We may wish to clarify that when LDP becomes a
> > Draft Standard.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> >