Why do we need an IP address when the MAC address is unique? Cant we communicate only with the MAC address?
You COULD communicate using only the MAC address, but only on your local network. IP addresses are routeable, without every system on the network needing to know about every other. You just need to know a range of addresses that are on your local network, and throw everything else up to your router. The same thing happens at the ISP level. "All 216.x.x.x traffic goes that way, all 105.x.x.x goes that way..."(Obviously a gross oversimplification, but that's the basic process).
If we tried to route everything by MAC address, every machine on the network would have to maintain a list of every other participant, and it just wouldn't scale.
No. MAC addresses are specific to Ethernet, IP is independent of the underlying hardware. You can connect machines that don't use Ethernet to the Internet, if you have the required bridges.
MAC addresses are not unique. MAC addresses are reused between media. This is why wireless (802.11) and wired (802.3) may not both be present on one collision domain (see 802.1D).
MAC addresses are not clustered -- meaning that devices which are nearby in network space do not have nearby MAC addresses. IP addresses do have this property of locality. Do you intend to route packets by having a universal list of MAC addresses copied to every computer on the Internet, or do you intend to route packets to their destinations through a hierarchy of localities?
On a single collision domain, MAC addresses can be the primary addressing mode (q.v. arp and rarp). However, extension to multiple collision domains is ineffective for the above reasons.
A great professor of mine named George Varghese, now at UCSD, made the following apt analogy: You want to send someone a letter. The analogy of sending to a device anywhere in the USA based on its MAC address is like sending someone a letter knowing only their Social Security Number. It does uniquely identify someone (OK, yes, SSN isn't guaranteed unique, but suppose it was for the sake of example), but it would be very hard to find them without some giant table of where everyone lived that you could look up indexed by their SSN.
An IP address (and the similar Open Systems Interconnect, or OSI, network addresses) are more like USA phone numbers with area codes and exchange numbers: (AAA) BBB-CCCC, where AAA is an area code, BBB is an exchange number, and CCCC identifies an individual line at that exchange. There is hierarchical information encoded in that number, so that when you are far away from the destination, you only need a small table indexed by area code to determine a good "next hop" to forward the call to, rather than a table of all phone numbers in the country.
Ethernet is a Medium Access Layer protocol. It was designed specifically to connect computers on the same network. If you want to connect computers remotely located, you certainly need to jump to destination by hopping through several routers. IP (Internet Protocol) was designed with this goal in mind, hence the need for it, while Ethernet protocol does not support routing. Only some forms of primitive bridging that would not scale for something huge like the Internet.
they are used for different protocol layer.
MAC address is your device specific address. It has no relation with the geographical location, etc. you are in currently.
Ex: You can buy a cellphone/laptop in US and use it in Japan,
Australia, etc. But MAC address would remain the same. But IP address
would change with respect to the network you are connected to.
So it is difficult to route packet in an internetwork of portable devices especially.
How would it be:
Consider you have a portable network-accessing device with you on which you are using the internet. If we use only the MAC address, how would any incoming packet find the location of your portable-device. Since MAC address gives you only a fixed 48-bit device address. (The worst case scenario is using a desktop computer and having a MAC address without the IP facility. Coupling it with the static table to find your predefined location based on the MAC address, but our life is incomplete without these portable devices right?)
Thus we need some addressing scheme that can help us with addressing in a big and portable environment like internet, and thus the role of IP comes into picture, where address is hierarchal to provide a more geographically exact location.
Related
I am sorry if its basics, but I did not find the appealing answer for it over the Internet.
Why only MAC is used to transfer the packet to a device ? MAC address is only obtained by ARP for a specific IP address. So, why not just let the routers maintain IP addresses of the neighbouring routers and route packets using IP addresses of routers instead of MAC addresses ?
Why not redesign the architecture, to only use IP address for routing as well as moving the packet in the data link layer too ?
Why do we need MAC addresses?" Why can't network devices such as the routers just send the packet to the next router using the router's IP address?
Note : I know that MAC address is used to identify the system in a network. But you see the source never knew the MAC address of receiver. All it knew was its IP address and MAC address of next hop.
I'm reading Data Comm and Networking by Forouzan ( Ed 5) and it says that even routers have an IP address. So why use the mac address at all. The router can store the IP address of the source and route it to the next router .
EDIT : The question that I was getting as suggestion to this one does not answer my query. There are multiple counter points and proof that I have presented here which could have been done which is not answered by the one which is suggested. So please read my question before making any assumptions.
What do you think makes more sense: Having one protocol like Ethernet handle all the layer 2 details so that its layer 3 payload doesn't have to care, or force IP, ARP, WoL, IPX, MPLS, SLPP, and dozens more implement it on their own? The whole purpose of OSI layers is that upper layers need not know all the lower layer's details and lower layers need need not support the upper layer's features.
MAC addresses are used for the layer 2 protocol which encapsulates a layer 3 protocol. If all the necessary features were embedded into IP, then you'd be leaving other protocols to re-implement layer 2 routing on their own. This would be wildly inefficient.
I understand that it's different than a hub in that instead of packets being broadcasted to all devices connected to the device, it knows exactly who requested the packet by looking at the MAC layer.
However, is it still possible to use a packet sniffer like Wireshark to intercept packets meant for other users of the switch? Or is this only a problem with ethernet hubs that doesn't affect switches due to the nature of how a switch works?
On a slightly off topic side note, what exactly is classified as a LAN? For example, imagine two separate ethernet switches are hooked up to a router. Would each switch be considered a separate LAN? What is the significance of having multiple LAN's within the same network?
it knows exactly who requested the packet by looking at the MAC layer.
More exactly, the switch uses the MAC destination address to forward a frame to the port associated with that address. Addresses are automatically learned by looking at the MAC source address on received frames.
A switch is stateless, ie. is has no memory who requested which data. A layer-2 switch also has no understanding of IP packets, addresses or protocols. All a basic switch does is learn source addresses and forward by destination address.
is it still possible to use a packet sniffer like Wireshark to intercept packets meant for other users of the switch?
Yes. You'll need a managed switch supporting port mirroring or SPANning. This doesn't intercept frames, it just copies them to the mirror port. If you need to actually intercept frames you have to put your interceptor in between the nodes (physically or logically).
With a repeater hub, every bit is repeated to every node in the collision domain, making monitoring effortless.
what exactly is classified as a LAN?
This depends on who you ask and on the context. A LAN can be a layer-1 segment/bus aka collision domain (obsolete), a layer-2 segment (broadcast domain), a layer-3 subnet (mostly identical with an L2 segment) or a complete local network installation (when contrasted with SAN or WAN).
Adding to #Zac67:
Regarding this question:
is it still possible to use a packet sniffer like Wireshark to
intercept packets meant for other users of the switch?
There are also active ways in which you can trick the Switch into sending you data that is meant for other machines. By exploiting the Switch's mechanism, one can send a frame with a spoofed source MAC, and then the Switch will transfer frames destined to this MAC - to the sender's port (until someone else sends a frame with that MAC address).
This video discusses this in detail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVcBShtWFmo&list=PL9lx0DXCC4BMS7dB7vsrKI5wzFyVIk2Kg&index=18
In general, I recommend the following video that explains this in detail and in a visual way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Youk8eUjkgQ&list=PL9lx0DXCC4BMS7dB7vsrKI5wzFyVIk2Kg&index=17
what exactly is classified as a LAN?
So indeed this is one of the least-well-defined terms in Computer Networks. With regards to the Data Link Layer, a LAN can be defined as a segment, that is - a broadcast domain. In this case, two devices are regarded as part of the same segment iff they are one hop away from one another - that is, they can switch frames in the second layer.
Hello Networking Gurus,
I have a question about IP duplication and how this impact the associated switches (layer 2). Sorry, I don't have any resources available to test this. It would be great if someone can shed some lights of their experience on this.
If I have two servers (Linux), say A & B, serving exactly same contents and for some reason they both are assigned same IP address. To be more specific, if A already has an address IP.100 and B has another address IP.200. Now at this point everything seems working and the switch has proper MAC addresses stored. If, later, B also gets the address IP.100, how would this affect the switch's ARP cache? When B gets the new address I assume it broadcasts ARP? to inform the associated switch.
So the question is, Does the switch stores both machines' entries? or overwrites the existing with new? Is there any standard behaviour or proprietary switches reacts differently?
If a client, with no ARP cache, tries to connect to IP.100, which machine would it be forwarded to? A or B or none? If A OR B, can I say from client point-of-view, that there's no outage? (Assume this is a static website, with no login sessions etc)
Feel free to point any relevant documentation.
Thank you in advance.
In theory, you shouldn’t have two hosts talking on the same IP, unless they are participating in routing. Eg any-cast. As things will break.
Each host will have its own MAC address. If the switch is only doing layer two forwarding, then the switch only keeps track of MAC addresses. It is the end hosts or routers that track ARP entries.
If you move IP 100 to B, then the hosts will update their own ARP table.
But if A and B have 100 at the same time, this will cause issues.
Switch will not see any IP's and do not have arp cache for forwarding packets , it will had only mac address table map macs to ports and macs in your case will be unique
I actually think this is how multicast works.
Hosts obtain a multicast address and all of the devices share that same multicast address.
A switch will gather collections of Mac addresses to that same multicast in it's mac table.
I could be wrong though....Still learning.
For a classification project I'm trying to generate a large list of dynamic IP addresses from a single wireless network. However, the only way I've been able to generate these addresses is by connecting a physically new machine to the network, as the wireless network remembers each machine (and so, whenever one machine rejoins the network the IP address remains the same).
For the sake of brevity, I've been looking for a way of automating the process; technically, all I need to do is find a way to simulate being a "new" machine. This way, it would be far easier to generate a list of IP addresses assigned by a single wireless network.
I've had a great deal of trouble finding out how to do this, and it is very possible I may misunderstand how a wireless network assigns IP addresses, etc.
Thanks!
(continuing from the comments above...)
As it turns out, there's no fancy machine learning necessary at all. You can get all the information you need by connecting just once. When you connect to an IP network and are assigned an address, you get both an address and a subnet mask (look it up if you're not familiar with the terms). Given these, a straightforward snippet of bitwise arithmetic will show you whether another address is part of the same network or not:
if ((my_address & subnet_mask) == (unknown_address & subnet_mask)) { ...
where unknown_address is the address you're testing. (This expression can be simplified a bit by applying boolean simplification rules, but this is a form where it's obvious what is happening.)
For example, if you are assigned:
address: 192.168.11.22
subnet: 255.255.255.0
then any other address is part of the same network if it starts with 192.168.11.. Again, the person who set up the network has very deliberately made these choices.
This very much reminds me of the so-called Barometer question, where one of the possible answers is "trading the barometer to the building's superintendent in return for the information wanted".
I would like to write a software running in a networked device, i.e. PC. It can automatically detect the other network devices' types. For example, it can detect there is a PS3, a Wii, an IPad running in the same network. Any ideas? Thanks,
You have two problems: first, detecting that a device is connected to your network and at 192.168.1.x. Second, somehow detecting what that device is.
The first is easy-ish to accomplish: there's discovery protocols like UPnP and Bonjour. However, in a home networking scenario, the easiest and most reliable way to get a list of connected devices is probably to pull the DHCP reservations from your router. You might have to scrape data from the router's HTML-based management interface—hacky as that may be—but it would work. (If you're using .NET, consider the HTML Agility Pack to accomplish this.)
Once you have a list of IP addresses of connected devices, your next problem is to figure out what each device actually is. This will be more challenging. Some possibilities:
You may be able to use the MAC address to help detect the device's vendor. (Here's a list.)
If you're using UPnP, you can ask the device what it is.
Use IP fingerprinting to determine what the device is.
Couple thoughts. The broadcast IP address - 255.255.255.255 is where devices talk and say "here I am". Should be able to listen to this and find ip addresses and more. Second, if devices are assigned an IP address by a DHCP client (obviously) you can usually find a list on the dhcp device. Devices often have names, this is a higher level protocol, like windows SMB, that you may have to interface with in order to get that information.