Re: [patch net-next V2] bond: have random dev address by default instead of zeroes

[Pavel Simerda <psimerda@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay Vosburgh" <fubar@us.ibm.com>
> To: "Pavel Simerda" <psimerda@redhat.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, andy@greyhouse.net, stephen@networkplumber.org, dcbw@redhat.com,
> "Jiri Pirko" <jiri@resnulli.us>
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:31:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [patch net-next V2] bond: have random dev address by default instead of zeroes
> 
> Pavel Simerda <psimerda@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jay Vosburgh" <fubar@us.ibm.com>
> >> but I don't think it should be changed.
> >
> >Just a short question. Is there any reason for bonding interfaces to
> >behave differently from bridging interfaces in this respect?
> 
> 	To clarify, what I don't think should change is that a manually
> set MAC on the bonding master should override the automatic copy of
> the
> first slave's MAC to the bonding master.  The fail_over_mac active
> and
> follow settings are an exception to this, but those are special cases
> for unusual network hardware.
> 
> 	As for the random MAC vs. zero MAC, I've always thought that the
> all zero MAC was a clear indicator that the device (the bonding
> master
> in this case) was not in a usable state (in the sense that it could
> not
> send or receive actual traffic).  It's not a really big deal, though,
> so

Thanks for clarification.
> if the trend these days is for everything to have a MAC all the time,
> that's fine, as long as doing so doesn't break anything.
> 
> 	I think the patch under discussion should be fine with the
> addition of the last notifier call previously discussed.  Some
> documentation updates would be nice, too.
> 
> 	-J
> 
> ---
> 	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com
> 
>