On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 17:07 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> 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? > > the udev script I attached from Fedora 9 already ignores devices with > 00:00:00::: so I don't think we'd have a problem with that. Screw the > Xerox thing, all zeros is just bogus and tons of stuff treats it that > way already. So this won't conflict even if you have two or more devices that claims zero mac address? Tomas -- 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
