Multicast MAC and Unicast IP Address
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Matthias Schaerer on August 18, 2005, 7:54 pm
Please log in for more thread options Is it allowed to have a multicast MAC address linked to a unicast IP address? If not what standard specifies this? I know that this mechanism is used for clustering but that certain vendors do not like it very much. I am interested in knowing what the rules are because up to now everybody just told me that it is a strange way to use multicast but some also said that it is illegal. Without proving it. So let me know if you know about a standard specifying this. Thanks. Mat | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Geert Jan de Groot on August 19, 2005, 2:43 pm
Please log in for more thread options RFC1122, page 67: When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address, the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP multicast address. A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify an IP multicast or broadcast destination address. I can think of several stacks (including ones on which I've worked myself), that would fail in the scenario you describe: they flag the packet as broadcast (multicast = limited broadcast) and hence, for instance TCP SYN packets are dropped on the floor in this case. Geert Jan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rich Seifert on August 19, 2005, 11:12 am
Please log in for more thread options
Geert Jan de Groot <> wrote:
> > Is it allowed to have a multicast MAC address linked to a unicast IP
> > address? If not what standard specifies this? > > I know that this mechanism is used for clustering but that certain vendors > > do not like it very much. I am interested in knowing what the rules are > > because up to now everybody just told me that it is a strange way to use > > multicast but some also said that it is illegal. Without proving it. >
> RFC1122, page 67: > When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address, > the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP > multicast address. > > A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via > a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify > an IP multicast or broadcast destination address. > > I can think of several stacks (including ones on which I've worked myself), > that would fail in the scenario you describe: they flag the packet > as broadcast (multicast = limited broadcast) and hence, > for instance TCP SYN packets are dropped on the floor in this case. > The RFC discusses *broadcasts*; it is moot on the issue of *multicasts*. A multicast is NOT a broadcast; the standards treat them as distinct entities. I believe that the use of a multicast MAC address to send a unicast IP packet to a group of devices (e.g., a cluster) is a perfectly correct use of link-layer multicast, assuming that the cluster software knows how to deal with the fact that multiple devices are receiving the same IP datagram. The reason for the wording of RFC1122 becomes clearer when one considers that some link-layer technologies provide broadcast capability, but not Ethernet-style multicast (e.g., ARCnet). The RFC simply says that link-layer broadcast can be used to send IP broadcast or IP multicasts, but not IP unicasts. The RFC says nothing about how one would use an Ethernet-style multicast mechanism. -- Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting 21885 Bear Creek Way (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033 (408) 228-0803 FAX Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Matthias Schaerer on August 19, 2005, 8:20 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Rich Seifert wrote: > Geert Jan de Groot <> wrote:
> > >>>Is it allowed to have a multicast MAC address linked to a unicast IP
>>>address? If not what standard specifies this? >>>I know that this mechanism is used for clustering but that certain vendors >>>do not like it very much. I am interested in knowing what the rules are >>>because up to now everybody just told me that it is a strange way to use >>>multicast but some also said that it is illegal. Without proving it. >>
>>RFC1122, page 67: >> When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address, >> the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP >> multicast address. >> >> A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via >> a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify >> an IP multicast or broadcast destination address. >> >>I can think of several stacks (including ones on which I've worked myself), >>that would fail in the scenario you describe: they flag the packet >>as broadcast (multicast = limited broadcast) and hence, >>for instance TCP SYN packets are dropped on the floor in this case. >> >
> > > The RFC discusses *broadcasts*; it is moot on the issue of *multicasts*. > A multicast is NOT a broadcast; the standards treat them as distinct > entities. I believe that the use of a multicast MAC address to send a > unicast IP packet to a group of devices (e.g., a cluster) is a perfectly > correct use of link-layer multicast, assuming that the cluster software > knows how to deal with the fact that multiple devices are receiving the > same IP datagram. > > The reason for the wording of RFC1122 becomes clearer when one considers > that some link-layer technologies provide broadcast capability, but not > Ethernet-style multicast (e.g., ARCnet). The RFC simply says that > link-layer broadcast can be used to send IP broadcast or IP multicasts, > but not IP unicasts. The RFC says nothing about how one would use an > Ethernet-style multicast mechanism. > > > -- > Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting > 21885 Bear Creek Way > (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033 > (408) 228-0803 FAX > > Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com Hi Rich, as I am no implementor or LAN HW I ask myself the question: How if not by looking at the multicast bit does a switch decide to multicast/broadcast a frame? I doubt that many implementors make a distinction between broadcast and multicast by looking at more bits than that one. But you are right, it's not specified clear enough. Thanks for your suggestion. Mat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- Matthias Schärer Network Engineer, Instructor Mob: +41 79 419 4557 http://www.anyweb.ch - All you want to know about taking care of networks is here. http://www.anyweb-osys.ch - All you want to know about networking training is here. (Don't be afraid to ask.) In case of trouble with resending emails to me mailto:matthias.schaerer@anyweb.ch | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rich Seifert on August 19, 2005, 12:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> How if not by looking at the multicast bit does a switch decide to > multicast/broadcast a frame? I doubt that many implementors make a > distinction between broadcast and multicast by looking at more bits than > that one. > The default action of a switch is the same for both multicasts and broadcasts; the frame is forwarded onto all ports except the port on which the frame arrived. Thus, for this simple case, the switch need only look at the unicast/multicast bit, as you note. The standards allow for more complex handling of multicast than this simple default behavior, however. Automatic multicast pruning (e.g., using GMRP) can restrict the propagation of specific multicast addresses onto specific ports. Manual configuration of the switch's forwarding tables (by a network administrator) can also be used to control the handling of specific multicast frames. In both of these cases, all 48 bits of the multicast must be examined in order to make the appropriate forwarding decision. From the switch designer's perspective, it may be easier to think of a multicast not as a "limited broadcast," but as a unicast that may be forwarded onto more than one port. The entire address is compared to the entries in a lookup table, which outputs the set of ports onto which to forward the frame. The output for a unicast will generally be only a single port; the output for a multicast will generally be one or more ports. Thus, unicasts and multicasts are processed identically. -- Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting 21885 Bear Creek Way (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033 (408) 228-0803 FAX Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Multicast MAC and Unicast IP Address | August 18, 2005, 7:54 pm |
| Picking an IP multicast address | October 29, 2004, 1:03 pm |
| Multicast MAC in Source MAC Address Field | August 30, 2005, 5:13 pm |
| Multicast test bed | October 18, 2004, 8:51 am |
| multicast, MAC ending with 00:96 ? | August 14, 2005, 12:55 am |
| ARP reply containing a multicast MAC OK? | March 19, 2007, 4:50 pm |
| Multicast pruning | July 2, 2008, 7:24 am |
| Multicast VLAN Id | July 14, 2008, 7:41 am |
| Maximum MAC multicast filters? | October 5, 2005, 8:48 am |
| Extreme Networks 300-48 Multicast issues | January 11, 2005, 1:55 am |
| MAC address of an IPv6 address | April 10, 2007, 4:42 pm |
| Mac address recovery | December 17, 2004, 9:07 am |
| Change MAC address | January 25, 2005, 8:53 am |
| Valid mac address | February 7, 2006, 8:21 pm |
| Change MAC address | June 20, 2007, 7:19 am |
> address? If not what standard specifies this?
> I know that this mechanism is used for clustering but that certain vendors
> do not like it very much. I am interested in knowing what the rules are
> because up to now everybody just told me that it is a strange way to use
> multicast but some also said that it is illegal. Without proving it.