Greg, Sorry, I was looking at two messages back to back. From a unicast from Donald:
> I'm still working on catching up on the MAC address aspects of this > discussion so this message may have been overcome by events. > > But individual MAC addresses are abundant. I received a request from > IANA in connection with the -07 version of this draft on 22 May 2019 > (yes 2019). I reviewed the draft the same day and sent back an > approval to IANA to assign a MAC address in which I suggested the > value 00-00-5E-00-52-02 which is still available according to the IANA > registry. Presumably IANA will make that assignment as soon as the > IESG approves the draft. -- Jeff > On Aug 10, 2020, at 3:38 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > to update the IANA considerations section by replacing TBD1 with the actual > MAC address? I see two small allocation ranges for in the Unicast MAC > addresses: > 00-52-02 to 00-52-12 Unassigned (small allocations) > .... > 00-52-14 to 00-52-FF Unassigned (small allocations) > > Also, can we change the wording in the Reference column from "BFD over VXLAN" > to "Control channel in NVO3"? That would be helpful to the work on OAM in > Geneve. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:14 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org > <mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > Thank you, Donald. > > Greg, would you bump the draft with this assignment? > > -- Jeff > > > > On Aug 10, 2020, at 1:08 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com > > <mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > My apologies for not responding earlier in this thread. > > > > IANA originally contacted me as a Designated Expert for MAC addresses > > under the IANA OUI last year in connection with version -07. At that > > time, I approved an assignment for this draft. I'm fine with any > > reasonable usage description the WG comes up with for this MAC address > > whether more or less generic. (Usage of a MAC address reserved for > > documentation would not be appropriate) > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > =============================== > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > > d3e...@gmail.com <mailto:d3e...@gmail.com> > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:55 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com > > <mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Jeff, > >> do you think that the record in the Usage filed for the requested MAC > >> address instead of "BFD over VXLAN" be more generic, e.g., "Active OAM > >> over NVO3"? > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Greg > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:26 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org > >> <mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:52:14PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > >>>>>> Proposed solution: A MAC value should be chosen that is well known and > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> text would become: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Destination MAC: A Management VNI, which does not have any tenants, > >>>>>> will > >>>>>> have no dedicated MAC address for decapsulated traffic. The value > >>>>>> X:X:X:X:X > >>>>>> SHOULD be used in this field." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> SHOULD might need to be MUST. Since a partial motivation for > >>>>>> permitting > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> flexibility in the specification to NOT use the management VNI is > >>>>>> desired= > >>>>> , > >>>>>> MUST might be inappropriate. > >>>>>> > >>>>> GIM>> Accepted the suggested text. I agree that the flexibility to not > >>>>> use > >>>>> the Management VNI is permitted in the specification and thus SHOULD in > >>>>> the > >>>>> text is consistent with that scenario. How would we pick the MAC > >>>>> address? > >>>> > >>>> I am out of my area of expertise and I was hoping someone in the IESG > >>>> can offer a fix. :-) I am copying Donald Eastlake since he's the > >>>> designated expert for the IANA MAC address block. > >>>> > >>>> Donald, review of the thread may be useful, but tersely the need is to > >>>> have a well known MAC address that can be placed in this vxlan PDU that > >>>> is literally a placeholder of "not to be used for forwarding". The > >>>> packet arrives at the endpoint and, if not immediately accepted, would > >>>> be dropped. > >>>> > >>>> If there is no well known MAC that could be used for such a behavior, > >>>> perhaps an address from the IANA block may be used? > >>>> > >>>> While I suspect the IANA mac documentation range could be used, IANA may > >>>> not appreciate that. > >>> > >>> Donald is not responding to emails. Considering I've been similarly bad > >>> about responding, that's forgivable. However, in the interest of > >>> advancing > >>> the document, I'd like to make a proposal. > >>> > >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers/ethernet-numbers.xhtml > >>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers/ethernet-numbers.xhtml> > >>> > >>> Proposed text: > >>> > >>> : Destination MAC: A Management VNI, which does not have any tenants, will > >>> : have no dedicated MAC address for decapsulated traffic. The value > >>> : [TBD1] SHOULD be used in this field. > >>> : > >>> : IANA Considerations: > >>> : > >>> : IANA is requested to assign a single MAC address to the value TBD1 from > >>> the > >>> : "IANA Unicast 48-bit MAC Address" registry from the "Unassigned (small > >>> : allocations)" block. The Usage field will be "BFD for vxlan" with a > >>> : Reference field of this document. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- Jeff >
