On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM, RJ Atkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 Jun 2010, at 19:50 , Dae Young KIM wrote: >> I'd rather use local ID, for then I could >> eliminate one infrastructural element managing/governing/distributing >> the global IDs. > > There is no "management" needed for global-scope IDs. > Similarly, there is no need to distribute them as > they are normally built-in at the factory today > (and for the past 20 years or so). Also, governance > is equally not an issue. > > Pretty much every computing device anyone has today, > even the hand-held ones, already have at least one > IEEE EUI-64 in them, burned into ROM at the factory. > > This is one of the reasons that global-scope EUI-64 > values are the ideal source of node Identity. > > If a device already has (for example -- this is NOT > an exhaustive list) either a wired Ethernet port, > a wireless Ethernet port, other IEEE 802.* port, > Bluetooth port, or mobile telephone interface > (CDMA or GSM), then the device already has its own > EUI-64 (or most probably a few of EUI-64 values).
Aha.. Then, you meatn EUI-64 by your global ID. You could have just said that more clearly. And perhaps you also mean, - If, in a very rare case of EUI-64 collision due to mal-practice of some manufacturers, you could distinguish the connections thanks to the nonce. - By a local ID, you rather mean the case where users would use other ID values than EUI-64. Correct? > > Yours, > > Ran > > -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
