From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200003300704.JAA30539@denx.local.net> To: greyham@research.canon.com.au (Graham Stoney) cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Tiny fix to fec.c for RPX boards using only fast ethernet From: Wolfgang Denk Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:47:03 +1000." <20000330024703.3E3C0355E8@elph.research.canon.com.au> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:04:13 +0200 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: In message <20000330024703.3E3C0355E8@elph.research.canon.com.au> Graham Stoney wrote: > > the same MAC address. The munged address is still in their OUI block, whereas > using the same address on two interfaces is definitely illegal. Why should this be illegal? You will run into problem when you try to connect both interfaces (having athe same MAC address) to the same subnet, but why would you want to do this? For a common example just look at Sun workstations: they _all_ are using the same MAC address for all ethernet interfaces there are in one box... Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de 8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/