Hi Donald, many thanks for your clarification. Will wait for the IESG review of the current version.
Regards, Greg On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:52 PM Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> >
