On Wednesday 31 May 2006 19:09, Jason Lunz wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > 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.
> I agree this makes sense. Currently I'm forced to do it in a script. > > It's especially silly that uml virtual ethernet devices *don't* get > random mac addresses automatically, while tuntap virtual ethernet > devices *do* (in the same kernel tree!). > > Conditions: the broadcast bit must be 0 and the "locally-assigned address > > flag" must be 1 (as likely we already do). > > random_ether_addr() in include/linux/etherdevice.h already takes care of > this. Correct, it would have been a pity if this didn't exist. Thanks a lot! But because of the bit order problem, when I saw on some messages randomly assigned MACs (either for TAP or for some other interfaces) I wrongly thought they were global MACs (I expected to see 0x80 as highest-order bit, for multicast/broadcast, and 0x40 as "local" flag). -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!". Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894) http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
