nanog mailing list archives

Re: what about 48 bits?


From: John Peach <john-nanog () johnpeach com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 17:56:07 -0400

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:48:38 -0700
Jim Burwell <jimb () jsbc cc> wrote:

On 4/4/2010 08:46, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
  
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.
    
I could see how that *could* work as long as each interface connected to
a different LAN.
  
That was a logic Sun used.  Every NIC would be connected to a different
subnet, so duplicate MACs shouldn't be a problem.  For the most part
this worked, but some situations required a unique MAC per NIC, and Sun
had a bit you could flip to turn this on.  I believe it was an OpenBoot
prom variable called "local-mac-address?" which you'd set to true if you
wanted it to use each NICs MAC instead of the "system MAC".

You can set the MAC address to whatever you want in Solaris, using
ifconfig and local-mac-address was (is) the PROM variable.


-- 
John


Current thread: