ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Not EUI-64 [was Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?]

2016-02-09 18:21:15
On 10/02/2016 12:09, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:


On 2/9/2016 12:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:


On 2/8/2016 4:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
Problem is that most of us have ethernet hubs rather than true IP
switches. If we had real IP everywhere we could deprecate MAC
addresses.

Except that we derive self-assigned IPv6 addresses from MAC addresses.

No we didn't; they were derived from EUI-64 all along (IEEE MAC being a
proper subset of EUI-64 may have confused people). But that's history,
since the recommendation is being changed to 64 pseudo-random bits
by various recent 6man documents.

If we didn't need them to be MAC addresses we could go to EUI-64 and
have 16 shiny new bits to play with.

*You* wouldn't get to play with them; MAC vendors would. How would that
help, given they're already intended to be unique?

I don't want a unique identifier associated with my machine going on the wire.

I was one of the first people arguing that WiFi devices should declare
a random MAC address. The idea of putting permanent linkable
information on the wire is an abomination.

Maybe, although it does lead to interesting results like Wikipedia blocking
the IPv4 addresses of various Swiss civil servants recently. However,
IPv6 provided a layer 3 fix for this years ago (at the time of the Intel CPU
serial number controversy, iirc). Fixing layer 2 is not our department.

   Brian