nanog mailing list archives
Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments?
From: isabel dias <isabeldias1 () yahoo com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:09:43 -0800 (PST)
Someone is basicly "twicking the mail headers" by sending messages like "nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org"-who is? OUI...yes, great topic! Now mind me asking but why would you need a "private" OUI if the well-known (registed) list is quite public and everyone has a reserved allocation? (vendors have) and yes as far as i am aware all can be spoofed...up to the available anti-spoofing rules, plenty of google literature........just to check the theory points of failure ..... Now the question is do mac adresses change w/ IPv6? Is there a relation w/ IPv4/6 format type and OUI format type ? we might have heard of the IPv6 source address spoofing ..... http://www.cuba.ipv6-taskforce.org/pdf/isatap.pdf ...and w/ the translation to the OUI w/ v6 ...... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eastlake-ethernet-iana-considerations-08 --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org> wrote:
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org> Subject: Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? To: peter () peter-dambier de Cc: nanog () nanog org Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 10:01 PM Hi, On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:35:07 +0100 Peter Dambier <peter () peter-dambier de> wrote:I also found this one helpful http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers === The CFxxxx Series RFC 2153 describes a method of usings a "pseudoOUI" for certainpurposes when there is no appropriate regular OUIassigned. These arelisted here. CF0001 Data Comm for Business[McCain]=== I remember we had IBM Token-Ring equipment and theysuggestedto always use "CF..." and never rely on theprogrammed MAC for SNA.On an ethernet network, CF is a multicast destination address, or, as a source, I'm pretty sure it indicates that the frame contains a source route for use with translational bridging. The locally assigned 0x02 bit would be better to use. Be aware that Microsoft have decided to "reserve" some locally assigned addresses in the range 02-BF, and 02-01 through 02-20 for use with their load balancing / high availability product, rather than use one of their proper OUIs. Apparently you're not supposed to be using these address ranges because the locally assigned address space is so large, before you use this Microsoft product, so if you are, too bad. You'll have to change your previous local assignments, or somehow change Microsoft's software. Within Wireshark it shows it as used by Microsoft, which implies official assignment to Microsoft. The Wireshark people won't change it, so that gives it a level of legitimacy. I think that's a slippery slope. (It's a pet hate of mine that certain organisations force their private address space assignments (RFC1918 or IEEE locally assigned) on outsiders. It's supposed to be private so outsiders don't see it or don't have to work around it!) Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
Current thread:
- BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? mike (Nov 24)
- Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? Dale W. Carder (Nov 24)
- Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? Peter Dambier (Nov 24)
- Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? Mark Smith (Nov 24)
- Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? Deepak Jain (Nov 24)
- Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? isabel dias (Nov 25)
- Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? Peter Dambier (Nov 24)
- Re: BCP for Private OUI / address assignments? Dale W. Carder (Nov 24)