Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: 1904 Ethertype



Fortunately we have a subtype in 1904.3 (what we call pktType).. we might need to rename few bits (ref. version), though. The problem here is that _if_ we (1904.3) need to share the same EthType and subtype with 1904.2, then our current pktType numbering collides what 1904.2 is using, We shall discuss this further in out future telcos and f2f meeting.

- Jouni

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Michael Johas Teener <000006d4ac3a3138-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I strongly agree there needs to be a subtype ... this is important whether it's a transport protocol on top of 802 directly, or on top of IPv4 or IPv6.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Glen Kramer <000006d1020766de-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

Based on the TF2 directive given to me at the last meeting, I have requested an Ethertype for the 1904.2 standard.

I would like to inform the group that a new Ethertype (0xA8-C8) has been allocated, but not without some pushback from the IEEE Registration Authority. Since Ethertype space is a scarce resource, I was asked to show that we cannot get by using the existing "Local Experimental Ethertype" and also to show that we plan to use and administer the "Protocol Subtype" values, such that if we need to add a new protocol or to extend an existing protocol, we are able to do so without requesting a new Ethertype. It is my impression that it will be exceedingly difficult to get another Ethertype value for another 1904 project. Rather we should treat the Ethertype given to us as the 1904 Ethertype, and not 1904.2 Ethertype. 

The above, plus the fact that "Protocol Subtype" field is required to follow the Ethertype may have an impact on the 1904.3 packet header format, hence I am copying this email to the 1904.3 TF reflector.


Regards,
Glen





--
Michael D. Johas Teener - Plumbing Architect / Distinguished Engineer, Broadcom Ltd



--
Jouni Korhonen, Broadcom Ltd.