Re: what about 48 bits?

[John Peach <john-nanog () johnpeach com>]

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