IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Liaison from BBF

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 09 November 2009 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5C33A6B19 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:26:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0LO9ohp6Dq15 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:26:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D783A69A1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9A15D9E; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:27:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E3E9A; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:27:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:27:18 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Liaison from BBF
In-Reply-To: <200911091500.nA9F0PSm002116@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911091623150.22728@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD4DEDE9BC10@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <200911091500.nA9F0PSm002116@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:26:55 -0000

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Thomas Narten wrote:

> this 4% figure seems *very* high. Can you please provide more details on 
> how you reached that number?

I have personal experience with managing ADSL provider. We noticed approx 
5% of all MAC addresses were identical, I've personally seen D-link 
NAT-boxes shipped with identical MAC addresses and a "clone PC MAC 
address" feature in the web GUI. D-link support response is "yes, our 
MAC-addresses are not unique enough".

It's out there, it needs to be handled. NOTHING the end user can change or 
in other way influence can be trusted, either it's their own fault or 
someone elses. This is why some manufacturers of DSLAMs etc do MAC-rewrite 
to handle this situation in flat L2 networks, ie the MAC number will in 
the aggregation network contain a MAC address that is tied to the customer 
access line, and cannot be influenced by the end customer. The customer 
MAC address will only be seen on the actual access line.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email