[124724] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Andersen)
Sun Apr 4 11:11:32 2010
From: David Andersen <dga@cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <w2yffcec29f1004040757u586a44e4ue16fedab5aafe8d2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to =
every machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, =
etc.; unless shown otherwise, these are likely to be errors, not =
accidental collisions.
-Dave
On Apr 4, 2010, at 10:57 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
> I've seen duplicate addresses in the wild in the past, I assume there
> is some amount of reuse, even though they are suppose to be unique.
>=20
> -jim
>=20
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:53 AM, A.B. Jr. <skandor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
>>=20
>> What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be. =
Or it
>> is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout the =
world?
>> All those low cost switches and wifi adapters DO use unique mac =
addresses?
>>=20
>=20
>=20
