From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [RFC] ethernet: avoid pre-assigned OUI values in random_ether_addr Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 17:28:25 -0700 Message-ID: <1305332905.8149.705.camel@tardy> References: <20110513171729.247b126e@nehalam> Reply-To: rick.jones2@hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.61]:4826 "EHLO g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758522Ab1ENA21 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2011 20:28:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110513171729.247b126e@nehalam> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 17:17 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > There are some addresses in the assigned vendor block that don't obey > the locally assigned convention. These should be avoided by random_ether_addr > assignment. How "recent" are these violations? Is there really a non-trivial chance of colliding? Much more than two or more stations in the same broadcast domain randomly picking the same random MAC anyway? At one level, avoiding using those OUIs seems to be a tacit approval of the violations. rick jones