IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF051B2A80 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:20:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2kfGGa_eS3M for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E6B01B2A72 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-x233.google.com with SMTP id yy13so2156797pab.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 16:20:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QLIf18Mau6NUApTcNtOG/sa1+aJ3xad9Mo/Q8k0LTxo=; b=L0pZUHydIw1oltUSApeDf66DEWWBnVWY0eu3uyBox8hlkD1xFR5XXe+zZlQ0ccEE2K Pg16BUVd3lzXjfxacCR7yvi8Ln6EOOPgZtp+q0NTibff+9Nng6PuMQydNOoUSXquAau8 z/nAf2vFeyeaTCDR3jDGSyIQ4Ysfr8rTxiq4AC9ZxTNe2abocMFP22x+e3rxNRy7fQG9 iyD6R2UX3/N6Lyct2K+e0BaljOl7qpvcGMQ4he7pUQi6LPaROI7Vnm7jtNM+EsBYVrX7 R7BexFrSXGN1xvJnJzmu44qiDFvsr4TM9dr1/fOroqt1fQI71jFwMeG1Nt7mOY/UsWBI qfgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QLIf18Mau6NUApTcNtOG/sa1+aJ3xad9Mo/Q8k0LTxo=; b=bHgjEIu6thnkhu1W6GCg7R306ksMlkDq9FcAaHrTxRNfH39Cjaxx+438tOXyNseSPS jHIMjOme5UhB1jXOdLri5pjK521qgObTE2xFzQi6bpACXaRtd/q7QPFcLSN08MO/P5Vj GvhigZrmXBbae6LfL1WKhA7UdLnsDQIYyvivYXVPtzkFcVTr+thkyk9sOsBZ87IoyrZL d0L4YknT0CeuzooTddYBIm0BLYfhnP26PA9wU0HRF+rEbK3bzqRV95jTNof935TVkhFv M3Sn/rQ1iiwfEBDMMtgzBIRpVUsrdKjZj8YLtoMOt9v6mOrIxfVTUYZAVDWh8SwNm0Mp 1i0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTqyxGNbdTtkRJj9clpBngTdDcz56vY7PQyfGdtMfUiAQNMa1H5OP/8E6TQX6+2uw==
X-Received: by 10.66.255.39 with SMTP id an7mr54359284pad.101.1455063653883; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 16:20:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:59fb:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:59fb:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x13sm395104pfa.72.2016.02.09.16.20.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 09 Feb 2016 16:20:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Not EUI-64 [was Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?]
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB1985F5F2BB3118362C67B921AED50@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20160208200943.A615941B5B96@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAMm+LwgLoYpQ1TNOTOuJzh+cu+GyRBf9=y_K7K35boQ9WcZKjA@mail.gmail.com> <56B92A96.9050200@si6networks.com> <CAMm+LwifTXvVd1mPZOfcOOR03Fnj-82H9aDVS01=wGezePtnXw@mail.gmail.com> <56BA4BC7.1010002@isi.edu> <CAMm+Lwi-n=be4AWGibs+Zq9egYw5pSDmPGb-4P0LDEcX1E6osA@mail.gmail.com> <56BA68CE.7090304@isi.edu> <CAMm+LwiM2sFUeejgJZe650UQbVHrh7EHrEF2omvPrZJPodgJLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <56BA8268.3070901@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:20:56 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiM2sFUeejgJZe650UQbVHrh7EHrEF2omvPrZJPodgJLA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Nd35bQz7F_5FudUWSTeLSouw7j8>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:20:56 -0000

On 10/02/2016 12:09, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.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@isi.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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email