Re: IBM TCP. Really DECnet and Ethernet addresses


David C. Plummer (DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM)
Tue, 11 Aug 87 10:38 EDT


There are a lot more Ethernet addresses than Internet addresses, and I
don't hear people screaming (yet) that we're running out of Internet
addresses. (I do remember screaming that there weren't enough class A
subnets, and later screaming that we had to be careful about doling out
class B and C addresses because of fixed-size non-replacable tables in
some older gateway implementations. Anyway...) The V1.0 Ethernet
allowed for 2^23 vendors. That's 8 million vendors. Each vendor gets
2^24 addresses. That's 16 million addresses. It's conceivable that a
vendor could run out of addresses, and my solution would be to give the
vendor another (or several more) chunks of 2^24 addresses. Even if
every person on the planet (about 2^32 people) had 64 machines (2^6) and
got a new address for each machine every year, the Ethernet address
space (2^47) allows for 2^(47-32-6) = 2^9 = 512 years of such
(farfetched) activity. This is why the addressing hasn't "blown up
yet," to use your phrase. There is therefore no need to recycle
hardware addresses if a particular board (e.g., your DEC-20's) is
unfixable.

As for your DEC-20 board, replacing a board and/or changing an Ethernet
hardware address for a host works pretty well if you use a
dynamic protocol->hardware address translation mechanism such as ARP.
The minor problem being the transition time until the hosts learn of the
new address, and this problem is discussed in the RFC.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:49 GMT