Fwd: Re: Reed's views, was [e2e] Cannara's views
day at std.com
Mon Apr 16 19:00:16 PDT 2001
Sorry, did a "Reply" instead of "Reply All"
>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:57:23 -0400
>To: jtk at aharp.is-net.depaul.edu
>From: John Day <day at std.com>
>Subject: Re: Reed's views, was [e2e] Cannara's views
>>John Day wrote:
>> > In fact, even Ethernet reflects the state of our understanding at the
>> > time. Then we didn't understand that addresses only had to have the
>> > scope of the layer in which they were used. I really doubt that
>> > there will ever be an Ethernet segment or even a bridged ethernet
>> > with 2**48 devices or anything remotely close to it. 16 bits would
>> > have been more than enough. What is interesting is that IEEE 802
>> > still hasn't figured it out. Look at firewire addresses.
>>I was still learning how to dress myself while all this stuff was going
>>on, but reading into what Seifert in his "The Switch Book" says, the
>>thought about the 48-bit address space was done more for administrative
>>purposes than for the purpose of actually needing that many addressable
>>stations on a single data link. An excerpt:
>>"... the Ethernet designers consciously took a different approach to
>>Data Link layer addressing. Rather than trying to save transmission
>>overhead by conserving bits, we instead opted to create a huge address
>>space capable of providing a globally-unique Data-Link address to every
>>device for all time. The Ethernet address space was designed to allow a
>>unique address to be permanently assigned to every device that would
>>ever attach to a LAN."
>Which in fact supports my point. All of that reflects our
>understanding at the time, that Ethernet addresses would have to be
>assigned and be globally unique, just as IMP addresses were and
>later IP addresses. It was only later that we realized that data
>link (and Ethernet addresses) only have to be unambiguous within the
>scope of the layer they are in. Link layers do not normally have the
>same scope as Network layers except in very simple networks. We
>didn't really understand that when Ethernet was being created.
>Consequently, not only did they not 48 bits, they didn't need to be
>centrally administered either. In fact, they only needed to be
>administered and assigned by the owner of that particular Ethernet
>segment. To some extent, the success of Ethernet has made it very
>difficult to explain to people what addresses are all about since
>really Ethernet "addresses" aren't addresses at all, but serial
>numbers of NICs applied at the factory.
>Was the address of your house assigned to it at the factory? Okay,
>so your house wasn't built in a factory, suppose they did it for
>mobile homes. Pretty cumbersome, eh?
>The nature of an Ethernet segment is such that a flat address space,
>as opposed to one that is topologically dependent (the property that
>makes a name an address) for a LOCAL area network doesn't really
>cause problems. The only problem is that there are too many people
>who think because it works for Ethernets it should work for
>And by the way, there was concern that there would be enough. The
>argument for 48 bits at the time, as I remember it, was that if each
>device weighed 1kg, then 2**48kg was more than the mass of the
>universe. We all got a little chuckle out of it as I remember.
More information about the end2end-interest