[124725] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Peach)
Sun Apr 4 11:18:18 2010
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:17:28 -0400
From: John Peach <john-nanog@johnpeach.com>
In-reply-to: <1A45C388-F50A-44E5-9A58-C20E72E5A495@cs.cmu.edu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen <dga@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > -jim
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:53 AM, A.B. Jr. <skandor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>
Sun, for one, used to assign the same MAC address to every NIC in the
same box.
--
John
