Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!w-colinp
From: w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: ToasterNet (was Re: Running out of Internet addresses?)
Message-ID: <63@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 13 Dec 88 19:25:33 GMT
References: <8812121420.AA27357@mitre.arpa>
Reply-To: w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 12

In article <8812121420.AA27357@mitre.arpa> mckee@MITRE.ARPA (H. Craig McKee) writes:
>What was the rationale for 48-bit Ethernet addresses?  They are never
>used beyond the "Local" Area Network; duplicate addresses at different
>sites shouldn't matter.  Regards - Craig

So you could burn the address into ROM on the controller and never, ever,
have to worry about changing it to avoid collisions.  So every ethernet
card ever made could have a different address.

It's simpler than a dynamic addressing scheme, and less work than a
configurable one.  The only penalty is the address length.
-- 
	-Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)