Why doesn’t every computer have 256 char domain name, along with a private key to prove it is the sole owner of the address?
Edits: For those technically inclined: Stuff like DHCP seems unnecessary if every device has a serial number based address that’s known not to collide. It seems way more simple and faster than leasing dynamic addresses. On top of that with VOIP I can get phone calls even without cell service, even behind a NAT. Why is the network designed in such a way where that is possible, but I can’t buy a static address that will persist across networks endpoint changes (e.g. laptop connecting to a new unconfigured wifi connection) such that I can initiate a connection to my laptop while it is behind a NAT.
- Yes, it would be a privacy nightmare, I want to know why it didnt turn out that way
- When I say phone number, I mean including area/country code
- AFAIK IP addresses (even static public ones) are not equivlent to phone numbers. I don’t get a new phone number every time I connect to a new cell tower. Even if a static IP is assigned to a device, my understanding is that connecting the device to a new uncontrolled WiFi, especially a router with a NAT, will make it so that people who try to connect to the static IP will simply fail.
- No, MAC addresses are not equivalent phone numbers. 1. Phone numbers have one unique owner, MAC addresses can have many owners because they can be changed at any time to any thing on most laptops. 2. A message can’t be sent directly to a MAC address in the same way as a phone number
- Yes, IMEI is unique, but my laptop doesn’t have one and even if it did its not the same as an eSim or sim card. We can send a message to an activated Sim, we can’t send a message to an IMEI or serial number
Intel tried this on the Pentium 3, we all hated it so they stopped.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III#Controversy_about_privacy_issues
This is the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you!
Along with the other comments on UDID, IMEI and MAC, I’d just like to point out that phones don’t have phone numbers.
On land lines, the number is assigned to the line that goes to your house from the local operations center; on mobile phones, the number is linked by your carrier to THEIR SIM card that you stick in your phone.
eSIM almost gets there; instead of a physical card linked to the phone number, all the logic and secrets are stored in a secure enclave on your phone and THAT is linked to the number, which is in a directory managed by your carrier. It’s linked to the phone itself because of the phone’s IMEI.
Sure, change the title to say “phones have unique phone number (b/c sim cards), why don’t computers have an equivalent?”
With VOIP I can get phone calls even without cell service, even behind a NAT. Why is the network designed in such a way where that is possible, but I can’t buy an address that will persist across networks endpoint changes (e.g. new wifi connection) such that I can initiate a connection to my laptop while it is behind a NAT.
For the laptop thing you realistically could by a WAN IP per device, itd just be expensivr and also a massive security issue DMZ’ing all your devices
Cool, I’ll have to look that up!
All you have to do is buy your own IP, and you can use it whenever you want. You don’t have to use one given to you by the upstream gateway via DHCP or BootP.
Of course, you need to make sure the upstream router is configured to not drop addresses it didn’t assign itself.
Even paying for a static IP its not like a phone number which is discoverable behind a NAT without extra router configuration.
Have you ever tried roaming with a cellphone…?
Yep, and I can verify my phone number didnt change when roaming, people could still call me.
Usually the phone number changes though. My phone number is 070Xxxx… here in Sweden, but my folks in law need to call 004670xxxx to call me unless they are visiting in which case 070xx works again
AFAIK static public-facing IP addresses are limited to a physical location. It would work if my laptop never left my house but as soon as I take it to the airport its no longer accessible. People who try to connect to the static Iap would just get a message saying the address timed out.
I’ve got a VPN set up on my home server so when I leave the house, my public IP is still the same on my laptop as it is at home. If you’ve got people sending you messages directly via IP why wouldn’t you just set that up?
Thats a valid solution, thanks for saying it!
I think it is good to note this requires either having another system at home or in the cloud to host the VPN right?
You seem to have be missing a fundamental thing about tech but I can’t pin down what it is. So I will respond to your edits.
but I can’t buy a static address that will persist across networks endpoint changes
You can. It’s called Provider Independent Space and it a pain to go with as an individual.
Yes, it would be a privacy nightmare, I want to know why it didnt turn out that way
Because people smarter than you, I, and everyone else in this post said 'Yes EUI-64 is a good idea in principe but the problems on a privacy perspective outweigh the advantages. So let’s build a system called MAC randomisation so people can get multiple address to access the internet with. ’
The good news is you can turn off MAC randomisation.AFAIK IP addresses (even static public ones) are not equivlent to phone numbers. I don’t get a new phone number every time I connect to a new cell tower
In some parts of the world or before 2000 if you changed mobile providers, say from Vodafone to Telstra you had to get a new number. Since that change number routing has become a nightmare and it makes the BGPv4 table look sane in comparison.
Even if a static IP is assigned to a device, my understanding is that connecting the device to a new uncontrolled WiFi, especially a router with a NAT, will make it so that people who try to connect to the static IP will simply fail.
This is a complex one due to NAT in the ipv4 space. NAT exists purely to allow devices to have the same private IPv4 address and hide behind a public v4 address.
No, MAC addresses are not equivalent phone numbers. 1. Phone numbers have one unique owner, MAC addresses can have many owners because they can be changed at any time to any thing on most laptops. 2. A message can’t be sent directly to a MAC address in the same way as a phone number
- MAC do have unique owner blocks. Cisco somewhat owned the 0000.0C block.
- Yes you can. That is literally how it works down the TCP/IP stack.
Yes, IMEI is unique, but my laptop doesn’t have one and even if it did its not the same as an eSim or sim card. We can send a message to an activated Sim, we can’t send a message to an IMEI or serial number
If your laptop has a regular Sim slot it will have an IMEI. True we can’t send messages via IMEI or serial because those systems were never designed for message routing.
I haven’t read all of the replies to see if somebody else had said this, but it’s because the Internet was designed to be completely decentralized, whereas the phone system requires your line or device to be registered with the network operator(s). Any device that can get a valid Internet address for the local network can communicate with the whole Internet, but a phone will only work if it’s explicitly known by the phone service provider, and that information shared to all providers.
We could set up a system, layered on top of the Internet, by which each computer could register itself in a central directory each time it connects, and thus be reachable at the same address no matter where it connects, even on a NAT connection. In fact, it’s easy to do with a VPN and Dynamic DNS (both of which require the cooperation some centralized authority). It’s just not universal, because, well, what’s the utility of doing so?
Well, phone numbers do get re-assigned too.
Lack of demand.
Phones having unique unalterable numbers was never an intentional feature desired by users, just a limitation of the available technology.
Computer network cards do have such a number, their MAC address, but modern ones can scramble it to avoid being tracked, without any loss of ability to be reached by everyone you want to be reached by.
They do, it’s called an IP address.
Phones get numbers assigned to them by a cell service provider, in order to communicate on their network, which is basically the exact process for computers and IP addresses.
If you’re asking about the equivalent of like a SIM card, in the computer/internet world, that’s handled at higher layers, by digital certificates. And again, the process is almost exactly the same, except they don’t (usually) get put on physical chips.
IP address is really the best comparison here. Some computers share an IP just like entire call centers may share the same phone number. And neither IP addresses and packets nor phone numbers are properly authenticated without additional enforcement systems.
Internal networks exist for computers and phones. It’s a nice parallel.
No, computers can’t share IPs
Sure they can. If you put a network behind a router they will share an egress/ingress IP. And there are certain high availability setups where computers share IPs in the same subnet for hot/standby failover.
Yes, but no. The public IP is that of the router, which NATs packets to each host, each of which must have a unique private IP. The public IP does not reference or identity hosts behind the router. And that’s not how HA works. Only one host is assigned the active IP at one time.
When you do call routing with a PBX each phone has an unique extension, equivalent to the private IP of each host.
Oh, and there’s also anycast, which is literally multiple active devices sharing an IP.
You’d have to know more about BGP to know any cast doesn’t function as you think it does
Ah, I see we are resorting to ad hominem attacks now.
So computers can share IP’s then right? By your example they are sharing their public IP. From the perspective of the server you are connecting to, all the machines on your LAN have the same IP. Same way multiple physical phones can be connected to a single landline, all those phones share the same number.
No, not the same
They can share the same router and therefore have the same public IP.
Yes, but no. The public IP is that of the router, which NATs packets to each host, each of which must have a unique private IP. The public IP does not reference or identity hosts behind the router.
A phone number does not uniquely identify a phone either.
Except you can spoof an IP address or get another one from the ISP just by asking. You can spoof a MAC address too.
Intel introduced unique processor id’s back in the late 90s.
Phone numbers can be spoofed, and SIM cards can be cloned. The analogy stands.
Cell phones don’t get a new number every time they switch cell towers, so why do laptops.
Its not like I can write down the IP address of my friends laptop so I can send it a message once he gets to a new city.
Laptops don’t get a new IP address every time they switch from one AP to another in the same network either. Your cell phone will get a new IP address if it switches to a different cell network.
I can get VOIP calls behind a NAT without cell service. I’m asking how is that possible. Is the router somehow part of the same AP as cell service?
Whoa, that’s a sizeable edit to the post! Regardless the answer is pretty straightforward: your VOIP client (either the device if you have one or the software) is connected to a VOIP service which acts like a gateway for your client. Since the client initiated the connection to the gateway and is keeping it alive, you don’t need to make any network changes. Once the connection is established, standard SIP call flows (you can Google that for flow diagrams) are followed.
So no, you router is not part of the cell service. The VOIP provider is part of a phone service that receives calls and routes them for you, just like the cell towers are part of a telephony provider that routes calls through the appropriate tower.
Finally :D thank you so much!
So basically VOIP is “cheating” because its not actually handled by the network directly, the phone company pays for always-online servers, and phone(s) reach out to those server every time they change networks, in order for servers to be able to route calls to them.
Which also means! it is possible to do the same thing for computers, but it requires having
- A static IP
- An always online server
- The device needs a daemon that tries to connect to an always online server, and authenticates itself
- That server needs to manually reroute traffic (through a VPN or some other means) from the static IP address to the device, wherever it might be
Which also explains why general network providers wouldn’t want to create the infrastructure. Even if universal addresses were given to each device, which simplifies DHCP and address-leasing, and shortens time it takes to handshake with the network, all of that is less of a cost than the infrastructure needed track of devices as they change networks. (And that’s on top of ISP’s being slow to change from the legacy approach of local networks and desktops).
^ which is more the conversation I wanted to have but didnt really get with this post.
Thats a sizable edit!
Yeah 😅 I didnt want it to be this complicated of a question, but I didnt see how else to explain that current addressing systems don’t meet the same need as a phone number.
- A static IP is actually not necessary, but what you need is a consistent identifier. For the server, that’s typically a DNS address, but for clients and peer to peer networks there’s other ways to identify devices, usually tied to an account or some other key kept on the device.
- For centralised communications yes, you would need an always online server. For decentralised networks, you just need a sufficient amount of online peers, but each individual peer does not need to be always online.
- Pretty much, yes. Even push notifications on cell phones work this way.
- Route, yes. Manually. VPN is usually not necessary. In modern web-based services this is typically done with websockets, which are client-initiated (so the client address can change), and which allow two-way communication and typically only require a keepalive packet from the client every minute or so.
There’s other reasons why universal addressing is not done - privacy, network segmentation, resiliency, security, etc. And while IPv6 proponents do like to claim that local networks wouldn’t be strictly necessary (which is technically true), local networks will still be wanted by many. Tying this back to phone numbers - phone numbers work because there’s an implicit trust in the telcos, and conversely there’s built in central control. It also helps that it’s only a very domain specific implementation - phone communication specifications don’t change very often. On computer networks, a lot of work has been done to reduce the reliance on a central trust authority. Nowadays, DNS and SSL registries are pretty much the last bastion of such an authority, with a lot of research and work having gone into being able to safely communicate through untrusted layers: GPG, TOR, IPFS, TLS, etc.
Its not like I can write down the IP address of my friends laptop so I can send it a message once he gets to a new city.
With static IPs that’s possible, but you already do that when you email them already.
That would be a privacy nightmare.
Yep. See EUI-64 IPv6 addressing.
IMEI numbers for phones are more unique than phone numbers.
Notwithstanding the instant privacy nightmare this would create, essentially abolishing online anonymity overnight, this is kinda-sorta what MAC addresses are already. As to why MAC addresses can be spoofed so easily without any real impact on anything, refer to my first statement.
Isn’t that what a MAC address is? There is a few ways to ch age it unless that’s been fixed iirc.
You will always be able to spoof your MAC address if needed. I don’t see the standard ever changing enough to prevent that.
Though the same is true for phone numbers
You can’t spoof phone numbers on competent telco networks. It’s not that difficult to filter out faked display headers and refuse to set up the call if your outgoing phone number doesn’t match any number on your account, the same way an ISP could filter out outgoing traffic that isn’t sourced from one of their subscribers to block DDoS.
In practice, very few telcos seem to care. This seems to be particularly problematic in the USA from what I can tell. However, this is all because of a lack of implementation of basic features for whoever is providing outbound calls, the same way DNS amplification attacks are possible because ISPs don’t bother doing basic traffic filtering.
I’m shocked this answer has so many upvotes. No, a MAC address is not close to a phone number. No two people have the same phone number.
- “two network interfaces connected to two different networks can share the same MAC address”
- “Many network interfaces, however, support changing their MAC addresses”
You ask a “no stupid” question then try to call out an answer? Bold move cotton.
Sure you can change your phone number, it’s called spoofing, or just call your provider and get a new one, sometimes they charge sometimes they don’t. So why are you claiming it’s not possible?
People have the same phone numbers, that’s why area codes exist, that’s kinda the same thing as a provider and a MAC address, no…?
Edit well then.
Fair, I could have said fully qualified number, including country code.
And also fair, instead of saying a MAC could be edited, I should’ve said each phone number has one global owner, while each MAC address could have many owners.
Corrections have been made 👍
no two people have the same phone number
You can share SIMs between multiple phones quite easily, actually. You can also have entire call centers behind one single phone number. The only unique identifier for a handset carrying a particular call would be its IMEI (though multi SIM phones have multiple IMEIs) and even that is just a number that can be faked on some modems.
You can also trivially spoof your phone number in most countries through basic SIP configuration. Someone with basic knowledge of phone numbers can call you with your own number as the calling party and there’s very little you can do to stop them.
Not quite. IMEIs are unique to hardware. IMSIs are unique to SIMs
IMSIs are a bit weird since the introduction of 5G, to combat illegal IMSI catchers. The identifiers remain, but they’re not used directly anymore, like a MAC or IP address would be.
SIMs can be swapped between devices so I don’t really see them as device identifiers. I suppose SIMs are hardware too, unless you’re using eSIM.
I don’t think that’s something that needs to be fixed. Your phone (and probably your computer) can randomize its MAC address every time it connects to a new WiFi to make it harder to track you.
Phone numbers aren’t exactly unique. It’s really not much different than being assigned a static IP address from your ISP. They’re assigned and if a line is cancelled or you change your number, it goes to a dormant state for a while then is reassigned to someone else.
Your phone’s IMEI on the other hand is a unique number, similar to a MAC address for network devices. Unlike a MAC though, it is illegal to spoof or clone an IMEI. Infrastructure however wasn’t designed to use the IMEI or MAC as the publicly accessible address, it was designed with a middle translation layer in mind.
Not 100% sure, my early history is lacking a bit, but I think that was simply because the fundamental network design underlying everything we use predates unique identifiers like MAC addresses existing.
Solid answer, thanks! You deserve all the upvotes that were, instead, for some reason, given to the guy that just said “I think its a MAC address”
That’s what the serial numbers on the parts themselves are.
UDID is kind-of what you’re talking about, but not an exact analogue.
- No, MAC addresses are not equivalent phone numbers. I can’t edit my phone number for free in 30sec to whatever I want, and I can’t send a message to a MAC address.
You sure about that?
Okay, then change your number to 911 and I’ll call it to check. The quote says “to wantever I want”. You can set your MAC address to anything, including other peoples MAC address. You can’t set your phone number to someone else’s phone number and just get all their calls
Try to change your ip to a taken one. What’s your point?
The IP doesn’t persist across network hops and the MAC address isnt unique. A phone number is both.
Static ips persist.
MAC addresses can be banned
Phone numbers can’t roam
Phone numbers aren’t unique (area code)
Wrong on all fronts.
