ti, 2007-08-07 kello 16:56 -0400, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller kirjoitti: > Am 07.08.2007 um 16:35 schrieb Mikko Rauhala: > > Incidentally, using the Bluetooth MAC directly wouldn't be such a > > silly idea. Different interfaces on the same host can share the same MAC > > just > > Hm. I remember that the only unique identifier in the world is the 48 > bit Ethernet address...
...for the host, sure :) > > 'course, you couldn't hook two interfaces with the same > > advertised MAC onto the same LAN segment, but that's not really a > > relevant limitation here. > > Are you sure? The same computer could be used to connect through > USB and BT in parallel. Interface-spesific IP-based routing can take care about which physical interface to use. > IMHO a better solution would be to rehash (MD5, CRC48 or something) the > Bluetooth MAC - so that probability of conflicts is approx. 2^-48 There is a process for generating random MACs and you're not meant to use just whichever one. But sure, you can generate a valid "well-behaved" random USB MAC from the BT MAC. Perhaps this _would_ in practice be a better idea, since some systems just might get confused otherwise. Luckily as Michael explained this is doable in userspace however you do it. Have a /etc file that fixes the USB interface ethernet address, and if it doesn't exist, generate it somehow (copy BT MAC or hash and mangle it so that it becomes a well-behaved random MAC, whatever you want). -- Mikko Rauhala - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <URL:http://www.iki.fi/mjr/> Transhumanist - WTA member - <URL:http://www.transhumanism.org/> Singularitarian - SIAI supporter - <URL:http://www.singinst.org/>
