kevin wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Drake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:49 PM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Currently, XO hostnames are set on first boot in the following format: > > >> xo-A-B-C > > >> Where A, B and C are the last 3 bytes of the MAC address expressed in > > hex. > > >> > > >> In Nicaragua we are seeing cases where XOs have no hostname set, both > > >> on XO-1 and XO-1.5. On XO-1 this is presumably because libertas > > >> usb8388 init was never 100% reliable, and on XO-1.5 its presumably > > >> because the wireless card was DOA but was replaced after first boot. > > > > > > Why would we need to get it from the wireless card? Isn't the > > > laptop's MAC address stored in the manufacturing data in motherboard > > > flash? > > > > Good point. > > > > I believe I've seen cases where the mfg data doesnt match the actual real > MAC address. If memory serves, it's on the older 1.5's, presumably where > the wireless module had been swapped out. If that is the case, it might
you're correct on both counts: that it may not match, and that it probably won't matter. paul > not matter, since the use case is that the old module was probably trashed > and so the mfg data is still as unique as it needs to be. Also, I'm at > work and don't have the old 1.5's in front of me right now, so I could be > mistaken and the mfg data does get auto-magically updated when the module > is switched. If so, sorry for the noise. > > > > > >> I propose we move to generating hostnames in the same format as before > > >> (xo-A-B-C), but with A, B and C assigned as random hex digits on first > > >> boot. > > >> (If people are worried about collisions, maybe we add a D digit.) > > > > > > Existing hostnames have three bytes of info (e.g. xo-12-3a-49). > > > Particularly if you're going to generate them at random rather than > > > by prior assignment like MACs, why reduce the amount of unique > > > information (e.g. xo-1-a-4 or xo-1-a-4-d)? Producing three random > > > bytes of info for the hostname, rather than 1.5 or 2 bytes, would > > > reduce the chance of collisions; and has the advantage of not > > > changing either the size or format of the hostnames, in case > > > anything else is depending on it. > > > > You're right. When I wrote "hex digits" I actually meant to write "hex > > bytes". i.e. I was not suggesting that we reduce the amount of data, > > only change where it comes from. > > > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > > Devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > > > part 2 text/plain 129 > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel =--------------------- paul fox, [email protected] _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
