Re: Misterhouse vendor id and uid range

[Kevin Hawkins <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
AFAIK mhouse is fine - in fact I am not sure who is administering
the allocations but I'm sure they'll speak up if it's not.

Within the current UID sizing we do not  allocate a range of UID's
to a vendor, normally the UID value (or base UID value if you use
several) is configurable in the application and it is left to the
user/installer to choose such that there are no conflicts.  You will
only need 1 UID per 254 endpoints/devices of course although you may
choose to use more.  If we do move to a longer UID - as we may - then
part of the reasoning is exactly for this situation such that vendors
have unique pools to work from and can even issue embedded UID's rather
like MAC addresses.

Kevin



Gregg Liming wrote:

>Hi,
>
>   I'd like to confirm that the vendor code of "mhouse" is
acceptable
>for use by the Misterhouse application.  I'm somewhat assuming that
>Bruce made the request previously and that it's legit.  The part that I
>am uncertain of is whether there may be a suggested or allocated UID
>range for misterhouse (a range would definitely be preferable as
>multiple instances and/or virtual devices would be needed).
>
>Regards,
>
>Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>