[124753] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Howard)
Sun Apr 4 17:07:18 2010
In-Reply-To: <4BB8FBCF.4020909@matthew.at>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:05:50 -0700
From: Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au>
To: matthew@matthew.at
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
>>
>> The IEEE expects the MAC-48 space to be exhausted no sooner than the year
>> 2100[3]; EUI-64s are not expected to run out in the foreseeable future.
>>
>>
>
> And this is what happens when you can use 100% of the bits on "endpoint
> identity" and not waste huge sections of them on the decision bits for
> "routing topology".
>
Having around 4 orders of magnitude more addresses probably doesn't hurt
either...
Although even MAC-48 addresses are "wasteful" in that only 1/4 of them are
assignable to/by vendors, with the other 3/4 being assigned to multicast and
local addresses (the MAC equivalent of RFC1918)
Scott.
