what about 48 bits?

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Sun Apr 4 10:49:38 CDT 2010


In message <20100404111728.2b5c9ecf at milhouse.peachfamily.net>, John Peach writes:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
> David Andersen <dga at 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 at 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.

Which is perfectly legal.
> 
> -- 
> John
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org




More information about the NANOG mailing list