Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> wrote:
> People talk about 'IP everywhere' and 'IP end-to-end' which is rather
> odd when you think about the fact that virtually every local network
> uses MAC addresses for routing.
Agreed. We have 30 years of stupid layer-2 tricks, first caused by lack of
subnet'ing before CIDR, and then caused by lack of IPv4 space afterwards.
With IPv6, we have link-local addresses which essentially do what MAC
addresses did before, and we can throw around /128 routes and the like.
My contention is that once "homenet" takes off, that layer-2 switches will
simply disappear from the home. They will all be layer-3, just because.
> What should have happened many moons ago was that DHCP should have
> become a bidirectional protocol or a bootstrap to a bidirectional
> protocol. So when a printer joins the network, it authenticates and
> tells the network what it is. And this is all defined in one set of
> specifications from one organization, none of which assumes that
> security is an 'advanced', 'optional' or 'enterprise' feature.
Yes, and DHCPv6 is very much like that.
And ANIMA and NETCONF and Eliot's MUD proposal are doing things like what you
suggest.
The problem is that there is too little investment, and those who want to
innovate are having to fight the FCC, etc.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature