Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!pacbell.com!tandem!moe!kevinr
From: kevinr@moe.Tandem.COM (Kevin J. Rowett)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: How do you get a ENet Addr?
Message-ID: <1990Jul25.184017.192@tandem.com>
Date: 25 Jul 90 18:40:17 GMT
References: <488@eng3.UUCP> <1990Jul25.090203.1@rogue.llnl.gov>
Sender: news@tandem.com
Reply-To: kevinr@Tandem.COM
Distribution: na
Organization: Tandem Computers, Comm Development
Lines: 28


In article <1990Jul25.090203.1@rogue.llnl.gov>, oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes:
|> In article <488@eng3.UUCP>, joe@eng3.UUCP (Joe LaRocque) writes:
|> 
|> I don't have the Ethernet or 802.3 spec handy, but I believe that
this is NOT
|> legal. And, even if it is, it's dangerous. It is critical that all Ethernet
|> devices have globally unique addresses. The hardware assignment of these
|> ainsures that there can NEVER be two the same. The portion of the
spec allowing
|> software to reset this address is something I've always objected to,
but it is
|> there.

The IEEE spec makes a distintion between globally admin'ed 802.3 addresses
and locally admin'ed address.  It's actually a bit in the address field.
The caveat is that you can have some assurance global admin'ed addresses
won't conflict between vendors, but all bets are off if the address is
locally admin'ed.

In products we build, we give the board a default globally admin'ed 
address.  We still allow the end user to change the current address,
but the software will never let him pick a globally assigned
style address.

Unfortunetly, that aprt of the S/W hasn't been popular with our customers.

kevinr@Tandem.com