In (msg07061 - "Re: [rrg] ILNPv6 Mobility problem") Steven Blake wrote:
> Name one modern device that doesn't have a unique hardware ID that > could be used to form a global-scope EUI-64? What really matters is whether this is a reasonable basis for the future. Since not every host has or will have a MAC address, your proposed algorithm would need to work from a variety of different types of hardware ID. How then to have an algorithm which partitions the namespace of the 64 bit result so that there's no way a host with MAC address XYZ will create the same 64 bit Identifier as another host which doesn't have a MAC address, but which has, for instance, a cell-phone identity number, or perhaps a PSTN phone number, which your algorithm processes to the same result as for the XYZ MAC address? I guess it could be done, but you would need to divvy up the 2^64 member namespace carefully, and allow for all future types of hardware ID which might be needed. I think a better approach would be some kind of hierarchical system of assigning Identifier space to organizations, just like IP address space today. Then each host can be configured to use a given Identifier, or to obtain one from which ever organisation it uses for the the purpose of gaining an Identifier. But I am opposed to Identifiers anyway - so I won't argue the point. I just want to break it out of the previous thread. To see why I oppose Locator Identifier Separation: "Overloading" of Loc & ID functions is good for hosts and should be maintained http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07017.html and: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html for my goals and attempt at writing a Recommendation. No-one has yet responded to these. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
