Hi Greg, You shouldn't put a specific MAC address in the draft until it is assigned in the IANA registry.
Requests that only appear in drafts don't take effect until the draft is approved but if assignment policy for the registry does not require IESG approval of a draft (for example, First Come First Served or Expert Review) you can send a request to IANA (see template in Appendix A.1 of RFC 7042) and then, after IANA has assigned a value, put it into a draft. Assignment of one or a small block of 48-bit MAC addresses is a slight variation on Expert Review (see Section 2.1.3 of RFC 7042). However, this document seems far enough along in the process that I'm not sure a separate request for the assignment (which would probably be referred to me and I would approve) would be worth it. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Mon, 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> 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> 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 >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:55 PM Greg Mirsky <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> 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 >> >>> >> >>> 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 >>
