From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [RFC] ethernet: avoid pre-assigned OUI values in random_ether_addr Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 17:32:13 -0700 Message-ID: <20110513173213.491c74a1@nehalam> References: <20110513171729.247b126e@nehalam> <1305332905.8149.705.camel@tardy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: rick.jones2@hp.com Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:59306 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758788Ab1ENAcT (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2011 20:32:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1305332905.8149.705.camel@tardy> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 13 May 2011 17:28:25 -0700 Rick Jones wrote: > 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. These were assigned long ago in the early days of Ethernet. It makes sense to me to avoid them as just good policy. --