[124790] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (A.B. Jr.)
Mon Apr 5 00:18:03 2010
In-Reply-To: <v2kf1dedf9c1004041405o3938ad6fk9d3925623899c086@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 01:17:19 -0300
From: "A.B. Jr." <skandor@gmail.com>
To: Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
2010/4/4 Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au>
> 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 ar=
e
> assignable to/by vendors, with the other 3/4 being assigned to multicast
> and
> local addresses (the MAC equivalent of RFC1918)
>
> Scott.
>
Wasteful in many ways.
While most of end user devices work with temporarily assigned IP addresses,
or even with RFC1918 behind a NAT, very humble ethernet devices come from
factory with a PERMANENTE unique mac address.
And one of those devices are thrown away =96 let=92s say a cell phone with
wifi, or a cheap NIC PC card - the mac address is lost forever. Doesn=92t t=
his
sound not reasonable?
A.b. --
