RE: why 0xFFFE is used in the modified EUI-64 format

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Fri, 20 January 2006 22:30 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F04mQ-0001Rx-Vu; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:30:50 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F04mP-0001Q7-0V for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:30:49 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07561 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:29:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.64.48]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F04vA-0001dY-O2 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:39:56 -0500
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com ([192.42.227.216]) by slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2.MG.10092003/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id OAA13717; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NE-05P.ne.nos.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-AV-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id k0KMUSW06141; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NE-1V2.ne.nos.boeing.com ([128.225.80.43]) by XCH-NE-05P.ne.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:30:27 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:30:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CA7D9B4A761066448304A6AFC09ABDA9094220@XCH-NE-1V2.ne.nos.boeing.com>
Thread-Topic: why 0xFFFE is used in the modified EUI-64 format
Thread-Index: AcYeEINVR/lHkYOtTM6B9QnjdZAIOQAACAYA
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>, IPv6 WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2006 22:30:27.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CDE8420:01C61E11]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
Subject: RE: why 0xFFFE is used in the modified EUI-64 format
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

I prefer this latest wording. I was puzzled why there was any difference between EUI-48 and MAC-48,  and was about to start searching when you provided the answer. I think it's best not to imply there's anything more to this than there actually is.

FF-FE resulted from some misinterpretation in the past, and so be it.

Bert
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:24 PM
> To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉; IPv6 WG
> Subject: Re: why 0xFFFE is used in the modified EUI-64 format
> 
> One more thing,
> 
> On Jan 20, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 
> > ....
> > They both use the same 24-bit OUI values.  It looks to me 
> like IEEE  
> > decided to deprecate the name MAC-48.  Why IEEE choose to have two  
> > different ways to create EUI-64 from these 48-bit identifiers is a  
> > mystery to me.  As far as bits on the wire, EUI-48 and MAC-48  
> > appear to be exactly the same.  The link in Jinmei's email that  
> > started this discussion confirms this:
> >
> > "The distinction between EUI-48 and MAC-48 identifiers is purely  
> > semantic: MAC-48 is used for network hardware; EUI-48 is used to  
> > identify other sorts of devices and software. (Thus, by 
> definition,  
> > an EUI-48 is not in fact a "MAC address", although it is  
> > syntactically indistinguishable from one and assigned from 
> the same  
> > numbering space.)"
> >
> > I will still plan to submit the new text as it clarifies 
> our use of  
> > these identifiers.
> 
> On further thought, I will change the last paragraph of the Note to:
> 
>     This document purposely continues the use of 0xFF and 0xFE  
> because it meets
>     the requirements for IPv6 interface identifiers (i.e., that they  
> must be unique on
>     the link), IEEE EUI-48 and MAC-48 identifiers are syntactically  
> equivalent,
>     and that it doesn't cause any problems in practice.
> 
> Let me know if anyone objects.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------