Re: IID length text

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

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".

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