[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is is possible to receive a cheep SubVendorID?
To anyone interested,
A number of interesting proposals were bandied about but most seem to
have faded. And aside from one official statement from PCI-SIG, not much
there either. I think I have clearly explained my objections to the
current status quo, and have also clearly stated that I am interested in
reasonable alternatives for small companies and individuals within the
official framework of PCISIG. But that does not appear to be
So Dimiter and I have gotten together and, as promised, he has
implemented a central resource for interested people to cooperatively
squat on a single unofficial Vendor ID. We chose to stick with 0xFA3C,
despite some very clever alternatives that were mentioned. Anyone who
wishes to use this resource can use 0xFA3C for a vendor ID and/or
subsystem vendor ID, and pick any unused device ID and/or subsystem
device ID by sending an email to:
Dimiter Popoff <email@example.com>
To take a look, and determined which DIDs and SDIDs are already
reserved, go to:
There is also a link from the home page:
Attempts to get messages, flames, and threats to me will probably
require emailing directly to me, since I have been booted off of this
list several times in the last week and a half or so. Though it appears
not to be malicious, but rather a broken list and an amazing
Duane Clark wrote:
> Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> > Richard,
> > thanks for the confirmation.
> > >Vendor ID of 0xfa3c is not currently assigned to any company.
> > >(Source: Vendor ID search at //www.pcisig.com on 10/26/2000).
> > So my wild guess worked. 0xFA3C (or $FA3C for people brought
> > up with a Motorola background) will do the job for a free vendor
> > ID anyone may use - and get a registered, free subvendor ID.
> > >(Did you mean that the DEC 64060 had a device ID of 0xfa3c?)
> > No, I just made up a hex number which I thought (within a second or two)
> > was unlikely to be reserved; it converted to decimal 64060, which
> > I found out after I used my calculator :-).
> > Dimiter
> I also like this idea. I will be needing such a number early next year,
> and would very much like to see such a system established... I would vote
> to stick with 0xFA3C for the VID; after all, Dimiter is the one offering to
> supply the service:-)