cmilono@netcom.COM (Carlo Milono) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May23.111104.21693@sinix.UUCP> df15@sinix.UUCP (Herr Lackinger) writes: >In article <1991May10.045134.21142@netcom.COM> cmilono@netcom.COM (Carlo Milono) writes: >> >> I am looking for the actual Pseudo-MAC addresses for a TP4 imnplementation >>for the ES.IS-ES Group Multicast and the ES.IS-IS Group Multicast. I >>understand that there was a TOP/NetBIOS discussion that got blessed by >>the NIST on this regard, but have yet to find any paper documention on >>this subject. I need help! >> >>Here is what I found: >> >>IS-ES: 09002b000004 >> >>but my router thinks differently! I found it wants: >>IS-ES: 030000000200 (cisco...) >> >EWOS Document 008 (ED008) states in 6.2.1.16 (Page 13) > >all ES: 1001 0000 0000 0000 1101 0100 0000 0000 0000 0010 0000 (09002b000004) >all IS: 1001 0000 0000 0000 1101 0100 0000 0000 0000 1010 0000 (09002b000005) > >Heinz Rudolf Siemens Nixdorf STO NC154 Ah, I have found several references that back-up these standards - ahem, however...I failed to mention (because I didn't think it was an issue) that I was attempting to route over Token Ring, which uses FUNCTIONAL Addresses rather than multicast. I found references to the addresses in: 1988 NIST agreement (which reversed IS and ES addresses) AT&T documentation (the addresses for csma come from their bank of numbers) TOP/NetBIOS Working Group of the MAP/TOP committee Basically, 'cisco' made a boo-boo in several ways: 1) all standards related to these addresses state that they must be CONFIGURABLE (PROMS do *not* count!) 2) in some cases, the 4th and 5th octets were reversed - in others it is inexplicable where they got the numbers..... A fix is on the way (OH, how I wish I didn't have to deal with TR!). -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Carlo Milono | | Personal: cmilono@netcom.com or apple!netcom!cmilono | | Hobbes: "Life in the Great Suburban Outback is certainly fraught with | | peril." | | Calvin: "If you'd seen it, you'd have been scared too." | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mckellar@pinocchio.encore.com (Steve McKellar) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May24.031145.948@netcom.COM> cmilono@netcom.COM (Carlo Milono) writes: > Ah, I have found several references that back-up these standards - ahem, > however...I failed to mention (because I didn't think it was an issue) > that I was attempting to route over Token Ring, which uses FUNCTIONAL > Addresses rather than multicast. um, could someone explain - or point to an explanation - of FUNCTIONAL addresses? what they are, how they're used, etc. thanks. steve mckellar