Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Set an ethernet device as NOARP. This is used for some modem connections.

Expected result:

Outgoing packets are sent to a standard MAC address. I believe ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff broadcast address is the only one that is suitable for that. Plus it would simplify testing with ordinary ethernet. Setting NOARP would then not interrupt communication.

Actual result:

Outgoing packets are set to the source MAC address. This, in my opinion, doesn't make sense at all.

This was refused upstream:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg221710.html
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg221705.html

Explanation from David Miller:

  It's the only address we know isn't someone else's and is not broadcast.

  The address is actually arbitrary in this case, I believe the
  current behavior is intentional, and even if it is not intentional
  since the address is arbitrary this change carrys only potential
  risk for zero gain.