🚀 go-pugleaf

> / hpindda:comp.protocols.iso / mckellar@pinocchio.encore.com (Steve McKellar) / 12:11 pm  Jul  5, 1990 /
> Help!
> 
> I'm working on a tp4 implementation, and the ESIS multicast addresses defaults
> are: 
> 
> es address (destination for ISH's) = 09002B000004
> 		&
> is address (destination for ESH's) = 09002B000005
> 
> The problem: our uk customer insists that uk gosip specifies the reverse
> (es address = 09002B000005, is address = 09002B000004), although our osi 
> supplier claims uk gosip conformance using the defaults. 
> 
> Can anyone out there shed any light on this for me?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Steve McKellar
> ----------

According to the UK GOSIP Spec. Version 3.1, published Jan 31, 1990,
section 4.7.5.5 ES-IS Protocol:

   two multicast addresses are required for use in conjunction with the
   ES-IS protocol and shall be LOCALLY CONFIGURABLE. A default value for
   these addresses is:

   All_ISN = 09 00 2b 00 00 04
   All_ESN = 09 00 2b 00 00 05


So yes, your worst nightmares have come true. 

The problem arises because the first edition of NIST implementor's 
agreements specified the incorrect values (those above, thanks guys),
and everybody went along (MAP 3.0, UK GOSIP, EN/ENV 41 102 . . .),
then later in the latest version of NIST, they were 
changed to the right values. All profiles except UK GOSIP have
ammended themselves to use the new values.

IS THERE SOMEBODY OUT THERE CONNECTED WITH UK GOSIP WHO CAN EXPLAIN TO US
WHY THE 1/90 VERSION OF UK GOSIP WAS NOT UPDATED TO REFLECT THE NEW VALUES??

Even though the multicast addresses are supposed to be locally configurable
in most profiles (MAP 3.0, UK GOSIP. . .), many vendors have hardwired them,
and this is going to lead to some nasty interoperability problems in
the future.

So my answer to you is:
  1) your uk customer is correct from their profile point of view
  2) make sure your implementation allows the multicast addresses
     to be configurable so you are conformant, and interoperable.

		      Bob Tausworthe
		      Hewlett Packard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These opinions are my own, unfortunately, not my employers.