Re: IID length text

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello, Behcet,
>
> On 01/17/2017 02:39 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 01/16/2017 06:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/16/2017 05:42 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 14/01/2017 à 20:49, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
> [....]
>>>>>
>>>>> What does a layer-2 EUI have to do with a layer-3 address?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, you tell me :-)
>>>
>>> Answer: Nothing. The fact that we've been embedding layer-2 "addresses"
>>> into layer-3 addresses should not be taken as a reason for the two of
>>> them of having to do anything with each other. So, yes, the 64-bit IID
>>> length is, in reality, arbitrary. They could have been e.g. 32-bits or
>>> 48-bits (yes, multiples or 64 or 32 tend to be nicer)
>>>
>>
>> I don't think you know much about MAC addresses and its history.
>
> I don't know much about elephants, either. Whatever the history (which
> you imply I don't know), it is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the
> fact that you don't need to screw your layer-3 protocol with your
> layer-2 IDs/"addresses".
>

Good luck then running SLAAC or ARP :-)

Regards,

Behcet
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>