RE: [OPS-AREA] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes -three or fouroctets

["Natale, Bob" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Dave's analysis certainly seems correct to me.

Any protocols that limit enterprise values to something less than a
sub-id would seem to be flawed (albeit with low risk of causing
problems per Dan's observations on usage to date...of course, with IPv6
and the changing definition of enterprise in the real world, who knows!
:).

Cheers,
BobN 

-----Original Message-----
From: David B Harrington [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:50 PM
To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'OPS Area'
Cc: [e-mail]; 'MIB Doctors (E-mail)'
Subject: [OPS-AREA] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise
codes -three or fouroctets

Hi,

According to www.iana.org, the defining document for ENTERPRISE is
RFC2578. I believe this is the updated defining document; the original
appears to be RFC1065 (Structure and Identification of Management
Information for TCP/IP-based internets). 

Each enterprise is assigned a subtree:
"For example, if the
   "Flintstones, Inc."  enterprise produced networking subsystems,
then
   they could request a node under the enterprises subtree from the
   Assigned Numbers authority."

A node is represented in SMI as a sub-identifier.
According to RFC2578, a sub-identifier has a value from 0..2^32-1
(4294967295 decimal). 

This would argue for a 32-bit field size, wouldn't it?

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:33 PM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); OPS Area
> Cc: [e-mail]; MIB Doctors (E-mail)
> Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes - 
> three or fouroctets
> 
> Bert,
> 
> The fact that you mentioned '(older) protocols' means that 
> your opinion
> is that we should advise that new IETF documents use only the 32-bit
> values? There is no such  guidance now and people rather use
existing
> protocols as reference, so we may need to issue such a guidance. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:04 AM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); OPS Area
> > Cc: [e-mail]; MIB Doctors (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes - three or four octets
> > 
> > Since, (as you note) there is no problem in the forseeable 
> > future, and since some protocols have already defined fields 
> > that only handle a 24-bit (i.e. 3 octet) value, maybe we 
> > should add some comment in the RFC-Editor mainatined registry 
> > that if they ever get to a value close to 25 bits, that we 
> > (IETF) need to be aware that some (older) protocols have 
> > limited fields of up to 24 bits.
> > 
> > Bert 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: woensdag 24 januari 2007 15:57
> > > To: OPS Area
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; MIB Doctors (E-mail)
> > > Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes - three or four octets
> > > 
> > > I apologize for the cross-posting. I am not sure if this is 
> > a problem, 
> > > but I would like to get some advice. I see in different 
> > documents two 
> > > different ways of coding the SMI Private Enterprise Code. 
> > As far as I 
> > > can understand these numbers should be coded as 32-bit, or 
> > at least I 
> > > could not find any reason to limit them in any document 
> > that mentions 
> > > them starting with RFC 1700. However, in other documents 
> > four octets 
> > > are allocated, but the most significant octet is specified 
> > to be zero 
> > > - see RFC 2865, or the more recent 
> > draft-cam-winget-eap-fast which is 
> > > on the agenda of the IESG telechat tomorrow. An 
> interesting case is
> > > draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-04 which uses 
> > three octets in 
> > > one place and four octets in four other places of the 
> same document.
> > > 
> > > I do not know where the limitation to three meaningful 
> > octets started 
> > > to be applied and why. Maybe we should not care, because 24 
> > bits are 
> > > enough for more than 8 million enterprises, and this may be 
> > enough for 
> > > the future at sight (28k were allocated up to now). I 
> would however 
> > > invite opinions, especially if somebody believes that there is a

> > > problem here and any actions or guidance from the area is
needed.
> > > 
> > > Dan
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors
> > > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
> 



_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

_______________________________________________
AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors