nanog mailing list archives
Re: what about 48 bits?
From: Scott Howard <scott () doc net au>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:05:50 -0700
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_addressThe 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 are assignable to/by vendors, with the other 3/4 being assigned to multicast and local addresses (the MAC equivalent of RFC1918) Scott.
Current thread:
- Re: what about 48 bits?, (continued)
- Re: what about 48 bits? William Herrin (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jonathan Lassoff (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Steven Bellovin (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jim Burwell (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? John Peach (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Mark Andrews (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Mark Smith (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Scott Howard (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Mark Smith (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Richard A Steenbergen (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? joel jaeggli (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Bill Bogstad (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jay Nakamura (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Steven Bellovin (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jay Nakamura (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Steven Bellovin (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Nick Hilliard (Apr 05)