[e2e] use of MAC addresses

[Puddinhead Wilson]

I think what is confusing him is that 
"the mac address is not what identifies the end
device".
If it did, perhaps the confusion would not be there.

What we tend to do is "stack identifiers" or tend to
"keep them local". We have
MAC, then IP then again MAC. Now if MAC was global we
could all "talk on MAC plane". I would dial the MAC.

though flow switching is prone to hash collisions.. as
far as I can make out.

ideally it should be:
i transact from MAC A to MAC B, my "demux is local"
but my connection is global.

The problem i think comes when one tries to couple the
"end point identifier" with the "switching
identifier".
There is a whole lot on "connectionless and connection
oriented but I think TCP" is connection oriented too
while IP isnt so am not clear on the semantics



--- Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Fahad Dogar wrote:
> > On 4/13/06, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> ...
> >> Please explain how ARP and DHCP would then work.
> Or router discovery and
> >> host address assignment in IPv6.
> > 
> > I agree --- we would require changes to DHCP and
> probably would not
> > require ARP at all. A very naivete alternative to
> DHCP could be: new
> > node generating a random number which acts as its
> temporary address
> > and is used by the DHCP server to assign the IP
> address. With flash
> > memory, writing layer 2 addresses in this manner
> shouldn't be a
> > problem as well.
> 
> The problem with 'try and fail' is that these
> approaches may kill the
> link layer, e.g., spanning tree. We already use them
> at L3 (see RFC
> 3330), but resolution of conflicts relies on unique
> L2s.
> 
> You still, however, have not explained why unique
> MAC addresses isn't
> sufficient. They're simple, and already widely in
> use. And they're cheap
> - - a great description of how cheap:
> 
> 	- use the serial number of a US dollar bill
> 	- burn the bill
> 
> I.e., the upper bound cost is exactly 1 USD.
> 
> > IMHO, we have to change these protocols because
> they have been
> > designed keeping in view the presence of MAC
> addresses and how they
> > work. If we were to redesign Internet and
> networking technologies
> > (clean slate approach), do we need to have a
> different MAC address.
> > Shouldn't IP address be sufficient? It is like
> assigning a globally
> > unique name to every person and then asking him to
> maintain an
> > additional name for 'local' identification.
> 
> This is one of the biggest problems with the phrase
> "clean slate". It
> does NOT mean that you MUST start with a blank page
> and throw out
> everything FIRST. It means you _can_ redesign any
> part you NEED to redesign.
> 
> As Ted pointed out, you haven't explained the
> problem with unique MAC
> addresses that needs to be solved yet. Once you have
> that, then you can
> erase the slate.
> 
> That said, blank slates aren't how we build
> networks. We start with
> ideas, not just empty space. Once you show the need
> to erase, you have
> to have a workable solution as an alternative.
> 
> Joe
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
>
iD8DBQFEPoy4E5f5cImnZrsRAr52AJ4igDG/mfv2bvl4mjRNpx0355bBoQCgkHNH
> qgvWsY5EBI94M48YComndQs=
> =Qs80
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com