Re: DAD question

sthaug@nethelp.no Sat, 11 August 2012 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 3971A21F850D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.39
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.280, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29m6Vqk4BbF9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9621E21F84D8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 72929 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2012 16:01:04 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 11 Aug 2012 16:01:04 -0000
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:01:04 +0200
Message-Id: <20120811.180104.41668882.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: bob.hinden@gmail.com
Subject: Re: DAD question
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <5FAE0128-DDE7-45C4-8632-F56EAA1BE362@gmail.com>
References: <36AA0AF8-95FD-4751-AE2E-A7A3D07038EB@cisco.com> <409F28A1-7974-4524-893D-CEF349A96657@employees.org> <5FAE0128-DDE7-45C4-8632-F56EAA1BE362@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, fred@cisco.com
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: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:01:08 -0000

> > it may be a fair assumption that if an address based on the MAC address is duplicate, the MAC address itself is a duplicate.
> 
> True, but the odds of this happening are very low.  I wonder if we have any data on DAD detecting duplicate addresses and their cause.

You may need to qualify "very low".

> For example, has any seen any actual duplicate MAC addresses?  It would be good to collect some data.

Duplicate MAC addresses are regularly seen in the wild. As an example,
from a nearby DHCP server, I have the following duplicates from a total
of 65499 MAC addresses:

5 00:90:4c:91:00:01;
3 00:40:10:20:00:02;
3 00:00:00:00:00:00;
2 bc:b1:f3:61:28:e3;
2 98:0c:82:84:ef:83;
2 34:21:09:03:76:f9;
2 00:1f:1f:8c:d4:d5;
2 00:1f:1f:8c:d4:cd;
2 00:1d:73:11:11:13;
2 00:11:22:33:44:56;

So from this sample a total of 10 MAC addresses occur more than once
(different customers, different locations).

I make no claims about these numbers being representative. My main 
point is that duplicates *occur*, for several different reasons, e.g.

- Manufacturing mistakes
- Software bugs
- MAC address explicitly set

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no