[openib-general] GUID/EUI-64 Issue

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 08:58, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Did we come to closure on how to handle the GUID/EUI-64 issue ?
> 
> -- Hal
> 
> On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 13:11, Roland Dreier wrote:
> >  My only questions are:
> > 
> > +             eui[0] ^= 2;
> > 
> > I remember some discussion about whether IBTA GUIDs are already
> > modified EUI-64 or not.  Is this the correct transformation or
> should
> > we be doing something like "eui[0] |= 2;" (ie assume the universal
> bit
> > should always be set in our IPv6 address)?  
> 
> IBTA GUIDs are EUI-64. The only issue I recall was whether the
> polarity
> of the U/G bit was consistent with IEEE. This was updated at IBA 1.2.
> It
> now says "manufacturer assigns EUI-64 with global scope set. May also
> assign additional EUI-64 with local scope."

Here's what the IPoIB I-D says on this:

[AARCH] requires the interface identifier be created in the 
    "Modified EUI-64" format when derived from an EUI-64 identifier.
    [IBTA] is unclear if the GUID should use IEEE EUI-64 format or the
    "Modified EUI-64" format.  Therefore, when creating an interface
    identifier from the GUID an implementation MUST do the following:

        => Determine if the GUID is a modified EUI-64 identifier ("u"
        bit is toggled) as defined by [AARCH]

        => If the GUID is a modified EUI-64 identifier then the "u" bit
        MUST NOT be toggled when creating the interface identifier

        => If the GUID is an unmodified EUI-64 identifier then the "u"
        bit MUST be toggled in compliance with [AARCH]

This confusion is due to IBA 1.1 and previous versions. It has been fixed at
IBA 1.2.

-- Hal