有些arp请求报文中为什么会有目的mac地址(不使用广播地址)

有些arp请求报文中为什么会有目的mac地址(不使用广播地址)

最近做实验，注意到局域网内大部分的arp包的以太网头部目的mac地址并不是广播地址，并且包内的目的mac地址字段并不是全0，而是目的ip对应的mac地址(显然，此目的mac地址来源于计算机内缓存的arp表)。

如图：

可以看出来，此arp请求包的以太网头部并没有使用广播地址，并且包内的目的mac地址字段并不是全0，而是和以太网头部的mac地址相同。
大部分讲述arp报文格式的文献中都会详细的介绍此字段并且告诉你，在没有目的ip地址对应的mac地址时，以太网地址解析模块会发送一个请求arp报文，并且包内的目的mac地址字段是全零(显然，因为并不知道此mac地址)。以图中的arp请求报文为例，首先以太网头部中的目的地址字段不是广播地址，其次包内目的地址字段不是全0.

查阅相关文档[RFC 826],其中

Related issue:
It may be desirable to have table aging and/or timeouts. The implementation of these is outside the scope of this protocol. Here is a more detailed description (thanks to MOON@SCRC@MIT-MC).

If a host moves, any connections initiated by that host will work, assuming its own address resolution table is cleared when it moves. However, connections initiated to it by other hosts will have no particular reason to know to discard their old address. However, 48.bit Ethernet addresses are supposed to be unique and fixed for all time, so they shouldn’t change. A host could “move” if a host name (and address in some other protocol) were reassigned to a different physical piece of hardware. Also, as we know from experience, there is always the danger of incorrect routing information accidentally getting transmitted through hardware or software error; it should not be allowed to persist forever. Perhaps failure to initiate a connection should inform the Address Resolution module to delete the information on the basis that the host is not reachable, possibly because it is down or the old translation is no longer valid. Or perhaps receiving of a packet from a host should reset a timeout in the address resolution entry used for transmitting packets to that host; if no packets are received from a host for a suitable length of time, the address resolution entry is forgotten. This may cause extra overhead to scan the table for each incoming packet. Perhaps a hash or index can make this faster. The suggested algorithm for receiving address resolution packets tries to lessen the time it takes for recovery if a host does move. Recall that if the (protocol type, sender protocol address) is already in the translation table, then the sender hardware address supersedes the existing entry. Therefore, on a perfect Ethernet where a broadcast REQUEST reaches all stations on the cable, each station will be get the new hardware address.

Another alternative is to have a daemon perform the timeouts. After a suitable time, the daemon considers removing an entry. It first sends (with a small number of retransmissions if needed) an address resolution packet with opcode REQUEST directly to the Ethernet address in the table. If a REPLY is not seen in a short amount of time, the entry is deleted. The request is sent directly so as not to bother every station on the Ethernet. Just forgetting entries will likely cause useful information to be forgotten, which must be regained.

Since hosts don’t transmit information about anyone other than themselves, rebooting a host will cause its address mapping table to be up to date. Bad information can’t persist forever by being passed around from machine to machine; the only bad information that can exist is in a machine that doesn’t know that some other machine has changed its 48.bit Ethernet address. Perhaps manually resetting (or clearing) the address mapping table will suffice.

This issue clearly needs more thought if it is believed to be important. It is caused by any address resolution-like protocol.

加粗段落指出，每隔一段合适的时间，后台进程会考虑移除一条表项(每条表项都有对应的生存时间)，在移除此表项前，会先直接发送一条地址解析包到表中对应的以太网地址，如果在短时间内没有回复，则删除此表项。请求包是直接发送到目的地的，所以可以不打扰到以太网中的其他站点；而直接删除此表项会造成有用的信息被删除，并且需要重新来获取此信息。
这样答案就很明显了。如果arp表中的表项生存时间一到，直接删除此表项，则还需要重新发送广播帧来请求目的mac地址，这样做因为广播而打扰其他站点。考虑到如果以太网中的主机很多，那么每台机器中的arp表中的表项也会很多，如果每条表项生存时间一到就直接删除表项，那么局域网中的广播数量会很多，这会在一定程度上影响网络的利用率，因此在删除表项之前，直接向该表项的目的地址发送一条请求报文来确认。如果短时间内没有收到回复，则说明此mac地址的拥有者已经改变了ip地址，或者已经离开了此以太网，直接删除此表项即可。

                                    AprilCal on May 2017.    
                                    mail:747998045@qq.com