On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 10:59 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > 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. Either way, the problem is that these will confuse udev if you have two at the same time, no? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
