Paul,
Yes, that's a valid issue. The arguments I've heard in support of this is exactly as Frank had specified: it's intended to identify the physical device, more than the logical endpoint.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Long" plong@IPDIALOG.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Using a MAC address as the Alias
pj,
What about NICs serving multiple EPs? Wouldn't the EPs all have the same
MAC
address? Maybe this configuration doesn't make sense, though, and
therefore
isn't something to worry about.
Paul Long ipDialog, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 [mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:45 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Using a MAC address as the Alias
And I should qualify that... unique so as to precisely identify the
device.
pj
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul E. Jones" paulej@PACKETIZER.COM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:20 AM Subject: Re: Using a MAC address as the Alias
Frank,
At first glance, it seems odd that one would want to report that to the
GK.
Certainly, it doesn't seem useful to report that though LRQ or other
address
resolution mechanisms. However, there are cases where it might be nice
if
the GK knew the MAC address-- especially since V4 now allows multiple endpoints to have the same alias. There are obvious benefits to having
a
unique alias in the list.
Paul
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com