IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: DAD question

Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> Wed, 15 August 2012 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <kauer@biplane.com.au>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3E421F85A8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8zyCML5K84DL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C7621F85A7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAGobLFCWZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANOIYBtz8BAQEEI2YLGAICJgICVxmuM26TL4EhjSKCCoESA6Beh3Q
Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.200]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 16 Aug 2012 07:30:28 +0930
Message-ID: <1345068027.2455.26.camel@karl>
Subject: RE: DAD question
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:00:27 +1000
In-Reply-To: <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02BCFA4C1A@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <201208141141.q7EBfiIe099885@givry.fdupont.fr> <AC13E895-93A9-4289-B416-2A273A3F0C34@cisco.com> <502A87DF.8080300@viagenie.ca> <502B4A57.7080701@gmail.com> <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02BCFA4C1A@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:00:38 -0000

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 13:55 -0500, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> > address registration as a form of weak access control.
> Unless that MAC address access control is done at Layer 2, which is not uncommon.

The two are different. One registers MACs at a central location and
refuses service (eg DHCP) to unregistered MAC addresses. The hosts
already have network access. The other checks at layer 2 whether they
are permitted to access the network at all (e.g. 802.1x).

Both systems have problems with duplicate MAC addresses. Not showstopper
problems, but problems.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://www.biplane.com.au/blog

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email