Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02/09/2016 08:09 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/2016 12:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.

Use RFC7217. Linux is in the process of defaulting to it.

Thanks,


> 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.

+1 -- nice to hear that!  (and that's even worse when you do that in a
layer-3 address).

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492







[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]