On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 07:35:21AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:17 +0200, Luis Carlos Cobo wrote: > > So I see three options: > > > > 1) Use 00:... and be happy. No problem with udev, we use an address that > > is actually valid. > > > > 2) Use 01:00... and fix udev so it ignores it. > > > > 3) Use 44:44..., because it is what orinoco used and fix udev so it > > ignores it. > > > > I would go for solution 2, 00:00:00:00:00:00 is a valid address for a > > device and multicast addresses are not, and that should be reflected on > > udev's policy. > > I guess, but having a zero MAC seems more logical to me, and it's also > the failure case if something doesn't get properly initialized. WEXT > uses it for "disassociated". We already check for the zero MAC in a > number of places. I'm with Dan -- use all zeroes. John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
