[e2e] use of MAC addresses
day at std.com
Tue Apr 18 14:38:55 PDT 2006
You know Dave, you really should get better at noticing when one's
tongue is in one's cheek. ;-)
At 17:26 -0400 2006/04/18, David P. Reed wrote:
>John Day wrote:
>>I have always thought it peculiar that MAC addresses had a larger
>>address space than IP addresses.
>Yup, we have always known that IP address space was too small to be
>correct. To be specific, we includes, without being limited to,
>Xerox PARC and the Saltzer, Clark, Reed group at MIT.
>>This confusion of IEEE 802 universal serial numbers with addresses
>>always seemed a little strange to me.
>This goes back to Xerox PARC, whose researchers recognized the very
>low cost and very high value of guaranteed unique identifiers as the
>base name space for networking, given the fact that networks are
>transient collections of devices, so binding naming to the
>particular topology merely made the system architecture more complex
>A simple way to realized that this is not strange is that the
>integers are the same mathematical objects, no matter whether you
>choose to represent them in decimal, hex or floating point ternary.
>Same with endpoints. They are the same no matter what network they
>are temporarily attached to.
>Only people who thought that the wires and topology are more
>conceptually important than the endpoints would have decided that
>mobility was of such little importance that they would bind
>addressing to topological happenstance. In other words, in IP, the
>"routerheads" won - rather than the "internetworkers".
>48-bits was chosen by the Xerox-DEC-Intel group as a compromise.
>Most of us researchers were convinced that 64 bits would have been
>more easily allocated.
More information about the end2end-interest