On Wednesday 31 May 2006 23:22, Brock, Anthony - NET wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> >
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:12:59PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > I've being thinking to this and I'm wondering why we
> >
> > shouldn't do it. When we
> >
> > > have set no IP or 0.0.0.0, which is
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 21:05, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:12:59PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > I've being thinking to this and I'm wondering why we shouldn't do it.
> > When we have set no IP or 0.0.0.0, which is not a unique IP, and we bring
> > it up, we should choose a rand
> -Original Message-
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:12:59PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > I've being thinking to this and I'm wondering why we
> shouldn't do it. When we
> > have set no IP or 0.0.0.0, which is not a unique IP, and we
> bring it up, we
> > should choose a random MAC to use
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:12:59PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> I've being thinking to this and I'm wondering why we shouldn't do it. When we
> have set no IP or 0.0.0.0, which is not a unique IP, and we bring it up, we
> should choose a random MAC to use.
> Conditions: the broadcast bit must be 0
I've being thinking to this and I'm wondering why we shouldn't do it. When we
have set no IP or 0.0.0.0, which is not a unique IP, and we bring it up, we
should choose a random MAC to use.
Conditions: the broadcast bit must be 0 and the "locally-assigned address
flag" must be 1 (as likely we alr
