On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:08:10 +0200, you said:
> Thanks that you ask!
> I really should have mentioned it in my initial posting.
>
> Yes, this change was intentional, as it in fact fixes a possible bug in the
> original code.
> Section 4.1.6 in RFC 4122 states regarding the "NodeID":
> : For systems with no IEEE address, a randomly or pseudo-randomly
> : generated value may be used; see Section 4.5. The multicast bit must
> : be set in such addresses, in order that they will never conflict with
> : addresses obtained from network cards.
>
> So up to now it was just pure ("random") luck if this bit was set or not.Sounds like a valid bugfix then - but it should probably be sent upstream separately, with it's own changelog (what I quoted above should be fine)... Remember - one patch, one logical change, so your patch should be split up (among other things, that way the bugfix can proceed even if the new-function part gets hung up in review)..... Other than splitting it up, I have no further comments on either part.. Enjoy...
pgp9RsNYCzLRF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
