RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes - three or fouroctets
"David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net> Thu, 25 January 2007 01:53 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9to8-0001E4-OU; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:53:44 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9to7-0001Dr-K6; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:53:43 -0500
Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.200.81]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9to6-0008KP-7R; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:53:43 -0500
Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-104-207.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.207]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2007012501534101100nfm0ve>; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:53:41 +0000
From: David B Harrington <dbharrington@comcast.net>
To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" <bwijnen@alcatel-lucent.com>, 'OPS Area' <ops-area@ietf.org>
References: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0C2CF364@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com><D4D321F6118846429CD792F0B5AF471F08C6DE@DEEXC1U02.de.lucent.com> <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0C2CF366@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
Subject: RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes - three or fouroctets
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:50:04 -0500
Message-ID: <03ee01c74023$221b3570$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
In-reply-to: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0C2CF366@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
Thread-index: AcdAE0ku+NFjZYnWRLGw1/LDcSCKlQAAL8FwAABRc0AAAO7CUA==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003
Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org, "'MIB Doctors (E-mail)'" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mib-doctors>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org
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:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:33 PM > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); OPS Area > Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; 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:bwijnen@alcatel-lucent.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:04 AM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); OPS Area > > Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; 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:dromasca@avaya.com] > > > Sent: woensdag 24 januari 2007 15:57 > > > To: OPS Area > > > Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; 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 > > > AAA-DOCTORS@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > MIB-DOCTORS mailing list > MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors > _______________________________________________ MIB-DOCTORS mailing list MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
- [MIB-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes - three or four oc… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes … Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes … Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes … Bernard Aboba
- RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise co… David B Harrington
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Enterprise codes - three or fou… David T. Perkins
- RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] Enterprise co… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)