jmg@cernvax.UUCP (jmg) (12/09/86)
The title says it all: who now issues Ethernet 48-bit unique-on-earth numbers? We originally got a set from Xerox, but I believe it is no longer them.
dw@rocksanne.UUCP (12/11/86)
In article <402@cernvax.UUCP>, jmg@cernvax.UUCP (jmg) writes: > ...who now issues Ethernet 48-bit unique-on-earth > numbers? We originally got a set from Xerox, but I believe it is no > longer them. There have been several queries about this lately, so I "asked around" and learned the following. [Please note that I am not associated with the group within Xerox that handles these matters (they're 3000 miles west of here). Please address further questions to the sources listed in the message] Hope someone finds this helpful, /Don ---------------------------------- From: Thompson Don- With the adoption of IEEE 802.3 10BASE5 as the successor standard to the Ethernet standard the address assignment responsibilities were transferred to IEEE. IEEE 802.3 10BASE5 is in the final process of adoption by ISO as international standard ISO IS 8802/3. Responsibility for address assignment would normally pass from IEEE to ISO at the time that that happens. It is my understanding that while "responsibility" will pass, administration will not expected to. That is, IEEE will most likely act as the contracting agency for ISO for passing out address numbers. There has been a resolution in ISO to this effect which is headed for ballot and expected to pass. It should be noted that the scope of addresses has gotten considerably wider. All 802 LAN standards now have 48 bit addresses drawn from a single pool. Xerox still does type field assignments since the type field did not make it into the IEEE standard. The address for IEEE is: Secretary, IEEE Standards Board 345 East 47th Street New York, NY 10017 The address for type number assignments from Xerox is: Ms. Pam Cance Xerox Corporation M/S SVHQ506 475 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Pam should be reachable over the Arpanet at: Cance.osbunorth@Xerox.com. For anybody who has mail gateway access to Xerox her address would be: Cance:OSBU North:Xerox Hope this helps. Geoff -- "I smell catastrophe upon the wind..." "That's just my breath." --Bloom County Don Wegeng Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.COM seismo!rochester!rocksanne!dw
dougm@violet.isc.com (Doug McCallum) (12/15/86)
In article <224@rocksanne.UUCP> dw@rocksanne.UUCP (Don Wegeng) writes: > ... >With the adoption of IEEE 802.3 10BASE5 as the successor standard to the >Ethernet standard the address assignment responsibilities were transferred >to IEEE. IEEE 802.3 10BASE5 is in the final process of adoption by ISO as >international standard ISO IS 8802/3. Responsibility for address ... For those interested, ISO TC 97 voted at the October meeting to progress the 8802/3 DIS (Draft International Standard) to IS (International Standard) and forwarded it to the Secretariat for publication. ISO 8802/4 and 8802/5 also moved to IS level. Doug McCallum Interactive Systems Corp. dougm@ico.isc.com {cbosgd, hao, nbires}!ico!dougm Doug McCallum Interactive Systems Corp. dougm@ico.isc.com {cbosgd, hao, nbires}!ico!dougm
sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) (12/19/86)
In article <188@ico.UUCP> dougm@violet.ISC.COM (Doug McCallum) writes: > ... > For those interested, ISO TC 97 voted at the October meeting to > progress the 8802/3 DIS (Draft International Standard) to IS > (International Standard) and forwarded it to the Secretariat for > publication. ISO 8802/4 and 8802/5 also moved to IS level. Doug has the right idea, but some of the details are wrong. The meeting he mentions was actually ISO TC97/SC6 and its working groups. WG1 Data Link Layer (including HDLC, the 8802 series, etc.) WG2 Network Layer (including 8473 [ISO IP], 8208 [ISO X.25], etc.) WG3 Physical Layer (including connectors, etc.) WG4 Transport Layer (including 8073 [of which TP4 is part], etc.) The next actual TC97 meeting is in January. As I was busy in WG2 (and eating raw fish since we were in Tokyo) I would have to check my copy of the final resolutions for the details of which pieces of 8802 were forwarded to the Central Secretariat for processing as an IS. I am fairly sure 8802/3 was, 8802/4 and 8802/5 may be, 8802/2 was not (a second DIS ballot was needed). The broader issue of registration authorities for many OSI related items is still the subject of much discussion. The number of things to keep track of is large, the number of volunteers few. It is possible that The Corporation for Open Systems (COS) may offer to act as registration authority for some of the open areas, but more discussion is needed. A special meeting of an ISO TC97/SC21 group concerned with this issue is scheduled for January 1987. -- Steve Langdon ...!{decwrl,sun,hplabs,ihnp4,cbosgd}!amdahl!sjl +1 408 746 6970 [I speak for myself not others.]