Blacklist for duplicate MAC's
-
Nothing special. Just boot and did a quick registration. The first host registers a “50:65:f3:nn:nn:nn” (which is the Ethernet-MAC) as hostMAC.hmPrimary=1 and “02:1e:10:1f:00:00” as hostMAC.hmPrimary=0.
When the second host boots, the ipxe-menu tells me the host is not registered. Next I select “quick registration” and a “host already exists as …” somewhere in the following screens and the host is not registered in the FOG database/interface. -
What version of FOG are you using? What distro of Linux and version?
If you look in the cloud in the top left of the WEB UI, it’ll have a revision number.
-
Its a fresh pull: 3451
-
I think that this is a developer question.
Give them time, they will eventually get around to this thread (probably sooner than later).
-
Bumping this thread…
-
Just so you’re all aware, I’ve been monitoring this thread waiting for more information.
How can you have two systems with the same mac address? Are you using a shared nic between systems?
-
We had duplicate MACs happen to many white box systems one year that had their motherboards replaced… all with 00’s or 88’s for a MAC.
-
Actually, I remember when I first started using FOG we had duplicate MAC issues. This was caused because I had “approved” pending MAC addresses - which included VMWare virtual networking adapters. These were all identical, since I had installed VMware Workstation on a base image and it had retained the same address on every PC.
-
The notebooks (quick) register 2 MAC’s. One is the (unique) ethernet-interface, the second (not unique) is another unknown device. I could look up the brand/type, but thats not the problem. I agree, it should not be possible to have duplicate MAC’s, but the fact is: I have. I did not lookup the device responsible, but i guess it is the WAN/4G Gobi (Qualcomm) interface/modem without a SIM (telco related), where the interface functions as some sort of un-numbered/loopback interface
-
Are these hosts automatically having their pending mac addresses accepted? And are you on FOG 1.2.0?
-
It’s a SVN#3451 pull
I don’t know what thee default are, but I think you are referring to this setting:
-
Ah ok! Maybe this is default behaviour now? Tom will probably weigh in soon.
I’ll upgrade to SVN later and see what happens myself.