RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs
Carl, All,
Here you can find information about the normal process for IEEE OUI and
Company_ID assignment. I assume that if IEEE agrees to have an Operator_ID the
process would be similar:
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/index.shtml
Regards,
Juan Carlos
-----Original Message-----
From: carl.eklund@nokia.com [mailto:carl.eklund@nokia.com]
Sent: 26 March 2001 10:20
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs
We agreed that we set aside 24 bits for the operator ID as part of the
Basestation ID. The purpose was that an SS knows that it tries to access the
correct operators network when it sees this number.
This could be a unique number assigned by e.g., IEEE. What it is called and
what it is used for in other instances is irrelevant. The only thing is that
it must not be a ardeous task to get one and it should not involve major
cost. It number must not imply anything else except the operator ID.
So if IEEE could give the LAN OUIs at reasonable term it would be great.
Roger could you give us the information (cost, time to process appliction,
number of forms to be completed etc )?
If the terms seem reasonable we can make a comment that then can be accepted
without a 2h discussion.
BR Carl
> I can talk to IEEE Registration Authority about possible support for
> this kind of thing. They already administer the 24-bit
> Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) used to identify network
> equipment by vendor. They run some other registration programs too.
>
> One thought is to have the operators obtain their own standard LAN
> OUI. I'm guessing that this would be OK with IEEE, but you'd be stuck
> with 24 bits. I think it's safe to say that this is a lot more than
> we need.
>
> Another approach is to ask IEEE to set up a separate registration
> program for Operator IDs. I can ask them about this, but I'd like to
> know some things:
>
> (1) How many bits do we need?
> (2) It sounds like this idea might be important to WirelessHUMAN. If
> so, then we may have to revise the answer to (1).
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Roger
>