[ooterness]

IP addresses have structure because a single ISP buys a contiguous block, like 123.234.*.*. A simple routing table sends that whole block to a single network port.

The table required for the whole Internet is large, but not gigabytes.

You can't route by MAC-address because it's effectively random. You'd have to store the port number for every device separately. This works fine at LAN scale, but not for the whole Internet.

[em-bee]

MAC addresses being random is a historical accident (because of hardware limitations). today we can define them in software. and just like we have link-local addresses we could self-assign link-local MAC addresses.

and i think the self assigning protocol in link-local could even go a step further. instead of hard coding a subnet, it could detect the subnet by copying the one from its nearest neighbor. so start with a random address, talk to neighbor to learn the subnet (and netmask) in use and switch to a new address within that subnet. then possibly run DHCP and update the address again. for static addresses DHCP could identify hosts by its cryptographic host key (like the one for SSH)

when two subnets join one of them may have to adjust its prefix. more complex, but still possible.

subnet prefixes could still be assigned to organizations to avoid overlap on a global level.

i am sure i am missing some details but i think in general this could work.

[sirtaj]

This sounds suspiciously close to re-inventing ARP and IP.

[em-bee]

well, it's merging MAC and IP into one address. there is no need for two if the MAC address can be assigned dynamically. and it's extending the auto-discovery of the address to work over larger networks. so it's not reinventing but simplifying things. (or not, i am not familiar enough with the details to be aware of other problems that could complicate things again)

[thereisnospork]

>You can't route by MAC-address because it's effectively random. You'd have to store the port number for every device separately. This works fine at LAN scale, but not for the whole Internet.

Not that I see any advantages to the approach but it's almost workable(?), if a little silly, at internet scale:

If every device had a 64byte ID, guesstimating 10billion people * 100 devices/head gets us a 'measly' 64TB of storage. Double that to include routing info gets us to ~128TB. A bit much to be practical, but not entirely insane either.

[tsegratis]

Nice maths. Would each router then hold 64TB and doing a lookup per request in that volume of data would be slow

Question: how does dns lookup differ from MAC lookup. Why is domain name lookup feasible, but not MAC?

[em-bee]

the router needs to remember where each address goes. with MAC addresses being random, there is no shortcut. DNS is distributed and you look it up one subdomain level at a time, and that can be cached. same for IP, the router only needs to store the subnet for each destination, not all ip addresses.

a central lookup database for mac addresses (which could be distributed by having separate servers for a segment of the address space) doesn't make much sense because the distance of a server to the location of the device is to great and would make updates expensive.

so the router has to remember each address used. but at least it would not have to store all addresses in existence. actually, i think the storage needs are similar to those for NAT. well, except backbone routers which have to store a lot more.

the actual problem is the initial discovery of a MAC address. where does the routing information for a MAC address come from?

you need some peer finding protocols like DHT, and those are slower.