On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 16:00 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Monday 28 July 2008 15:56:37 Luis Carlos Cobo wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 15:44 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > Well, I think that really is pretty weird and it is confusing to the > > > user to see that pseudo random MAC that changes suddenly when the device is > > > initialized. For the human user (so everybody but me), it would be better > > > to have the MAC all-zeros until the firmware loaded. So it would be obvious > > > that the MAC is not set, yet. I think userspace > > > > The problem is that all-zeroes is actually a valid mac address, owned by > > Xerox (http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt) Not that it will > > probably cause us any problem, but a multicast address is afaik an > > invalid mac for a device. Should we go for 01:allzeros? > > If that's really a problem, yes. 01:00:00:00:00:00 is still better > than a pseudo random MAC, IMO. It's immediately obvious to the user > that the MAC currently is not set. How about 44:44:44:44:44:44 like orinoco uses for bogus BSSID? If we can, let's not keep creating yet more bogus MAC addresses. Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
