[124838] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Sheldon)
Mon Apr 5 19:28:54 2010
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:28:09 -0500
From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1004051633290.22812@soloth.lewis.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 4/5/2010 15:36, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, A.B. Jr. 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?
>
> Since they only really need to be unique per broadcast domain, it doesn't
> really matter. You can I could use the same MAC addresses on all our home
> gear, and never know it. For manufacturers, it's probably reasonably safe
> to reuse MAC addresses they put on 10mbit ISA ethernet cards...if they
> were a manufacturer back then.
Seems like they have be unique within a DHCP "domain". And you'd have
to pretty much outlaw mobiles.
Wouldn't you? (Is there an accepted bit of nomenclature for all of the
networks that forward DHCP traffic to a given cluster of servers?)
--
Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
